{
  "id": 8608820,
  "name": "GEORGE VANCE SMITH, JR., v. GENEVA LEWIS SMITH (DURDEN)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1954-12-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "308",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 N.C. 307"
    }
  ],
  "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": "75 S.E. 2d 133",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612355
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 918",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 271",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8597424
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0271-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3037,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.259244762335987e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4328034182687871
    },
    "sha256": "11357c3b145d994eed71338871143405912e881468ee028a4712922019a7a5a9",
    "simhash": "1:927a9b3f6cd4c6cf",
    "word_count": 499
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:40.140494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE VANCE SMITH, JR., v. GENEVA LEWIS SMITH (DURDEN)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIt will serve no useful purpose to narrate tbe accusations and recriminations between plaintiff and defendant concerning tbeir past misconduct. Decision as to custody, in tbe light of all circumstances, was rightly made to turn upon what is now for tbe best interests of tbe children. Griffith v. Griffith, 240 N.C. 271, 81 S.E. 2d 918. The weight to be given tbe conflicting evidence was for determination by tbe court below. Griffin v. Griffin, 237 N.C. 404, 75 S.E. 2d 133. Competent evidence supports tbe findings of fact, the findings of fact support tbe judgment, and no prejudicial error is shown. Hence, tbe judgment will be\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. P. BurTchimer for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Bobert E. Calder for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE VANCE SMITH, JR., v. GENEVA LEWIS SMITH (DURDEN).\n(Filed 15 December, 1954.)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 19\u2014\nIn determining tbe right to custody of the children as between divorced parents, decision is rightly made to turn upon the best interests of the children, and the findings of the court in regard thereto are conclusive when supported by evidence, the weight to be given the conflicting testimony being for the court.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment of 5 July, 1954, rendered by Moore, J., Eesident Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, in Chambers in Burgaw, N. 0., from New TIaNovee.\nMotion in cause to determine custody of the four minor children of plaintiff and defendant.\nAt December 1951 Civil Term, on the ground of two years\u2019 separation, plaintiff obtained a judgment of absolute divorce. The cause was retained for further proceedings relating to the children.\nIt appears that plaintiff and defendant were married 17 July, 1936, and separated in February, 1949, and in June, 1950, defendant took the children and left the State. While the defendant and the children were outside the State, this action was instituted and the divorce judgment obtained. The service of process on defendant was by publication under G.S. 1-98. Both plaintiff and defendant remarried.\nThe defendant and the children returned to North Carolina in the Summer or Fall of 1953. On 5 June, 1954, plaintiff moved that he be awarded custody of the children. The hearing was on 12 June, 1954. Judgment was signed 5 July, 1954. Incorporated therein are findings of fact, including the following:\n\u201c5. That petitioner is not a fit and suitable person to have the custody of said children, his home is inadequate for their care and upbringing, and his home environment is ill suited for the rearing of children.\u201d\n\u201c6. That the respondent is a fit and suitable person to have the custody, care, nurture and rearing of said children, her home is well kept and has three bedrooms, and the home environment is good.\u201d\n\u201c7. It is for the best interest of said children that their permanent custody be awarded to the respondent.\u201d\nThereupon, the court awarded the permanent custody of the children to defendant, allowing plaintiff restricted privileges of visitation.\nPlaintiff excepted and appealed, assigning errors.\nW. P. BurTchimer for plaintiff, appellant.\nBobert E. Calder for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 345,
  "last_page_order": 346
}