{
  "id": 8621677,
  "name": "CHARLES K. HEUSER v. MARJORIE BEATTY HEUSER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heuser v. Heuser",
  "decision_date": "1951-10-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "293",
  "last_page": "294",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "234 N.C. 293"
    }
  ],
  "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": "53 S.E. 2d 658",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630622
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0481-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 126,
    "char_count": 1534,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.93323607004764e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4619587860141653
    },
    "sha256": "335153eeb1073f3752774bc5c961e2ea7c2d79fadb5a6b32941c3bbece140615",
    "simhash": "1:83bd5835a8d23ce4",
    "word_count": 248
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:56.500685+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES K. HEUSER v. MARJORIE BEATTY HEUSER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Otjeiam.\nSubsequent to divorce decree entered in Pitt Superior Court dissolving tbe bonds of matrimony between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff moved for the custody of two children born of the marriage. After hearing evidence and finding facts, custody was awarded plaintiff. Subsequently defendant moved before the resident judge at Snow Hill in Greene County that custody of the children be awarded to her. Upon facts found custody was again awarded to the plaintiff.\nDefendant\u2019s exception to the order on the ground that Snow Hill was not the proper place is without merit, as the hearing at that place was held on defendant\u2019s motion and both parties appeared there with counsel and joined issue. Patterson v. Patterson, 230 N.C. 481, 53 S.E. 2d 658, is not in point. The evidence heard supported the findings and justified the order appealed from.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Otjeiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Jones, Reed & Griffin for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES K. HEUSER v. MARJORIE BEATTY HEUSER.\n(Filed 17 October, 1951.)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 17: Judgments \u00a7 19\u2014\nWhere subsequent to decree of divorce, hearing for the custody of the children of the marriage is heard before the resident judge in another county on motion of defendant, and both parties appear there with counsel and join issue, defendant may not thereafter object on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to hear the motion outside the county.\nAppeal by defendant from Frizzelle, J., 12 May, 1951. From Pitt.\nAffirmed.\nCharles L. Abernethy, Jr., for plaintiff, appellee.\nJones, Reed & Griffin for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0293-01",
  "first_page_order": 339,
  "last_page_order": 340
}