{
  "id": 8632485,
  "name": "SIDNEY SMITH BRADFIELD v. ESTELLE M. BRADFIELD (BARENE)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bradfield v. Bradfield",
  "decision_date": "1942-09-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "750",
  "last_page": "750",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 N.C. 750"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "108 S. E., 385",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655140
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1563,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20736324781869522
    },
    "sha256": "f33f91cd5202f3a5de2d46955b464fd6154cf3290d3052bec8e294ed6e69407e",
    "simhash": "1:80a911db8a4e9445",
    "word_count": 257
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SIDNEY SMITH BRADFIELD v. ESTELLE M. BRADFIELD (BARENE)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe only exception in the record is to the signing of the judgment. There is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the findings of fact. The facts as found support the judgment. \u201cThe findings of fact made by the Judge of the Superior Court, found as they are upon competent evidence, are conclusive.\u201d In re Hamilton, 182 N. C., 44,108 S. E., 385. Plaintiff\u2019s exception cannot be sustained. The cause remains open for such further orders and decrees as circumstances may require. C. S., 1664.\nThe judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Q. Merrimon and H. Kenneth Lee for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Williams & Coche for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SIDNEY SMITH BRADFIELD v. ESTELLE M. BRADFIELD (BARENE).\n(Filed 30 September, 1942.)\nAppeal by plaintiff from Phillips, J., 1 March, 1942. From BuNcombe.\nAffirmed.\nAction for divorce heard on petition in the cause for the custody of the children .of the marriage.\nIn 1938 plaintiff procured a decree of absolute divorce wherein the court awarded the three children of the marriage to the plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant appeared and filed a petition praying that the former order be modified' and that she be awarded the custody of said children. When the cause came on to be heard the court found the facts and upon the facts found awarded custody of said children to Don S. Elias, step-grandfather, with provision allowing plaintiff to visit them. The order further provided that the custodian may permit said children to visit the defendant in California, where she now lives. The plaintiff excepted and appealed.\nJ. Q. Merrimon and H. Kenneth Lee for plaintiff, appellant.\nWilliams & Coche for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0750-01",
  "first_page_order": 794,
  "last_page_order": 794
}