{
  "id": 8571599,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: THE CUSTODY OF ROBERT MARK PONDER",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Custody of Ponder",
  "decision_date": "1965-01-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "530",
  "last_page": "531",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 N.C. 530"
    }
  ],
  "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": "124 S.E. 2d 857",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574325
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0638-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3549,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47319805131496084
    },
    "sha256": "5893837f2f2c86a3123e5201eec3093951be3cc91812bdaddf20b195560b7b5c",
    "simhash": "1:09303c661a572046",
    "word_count": 610
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: THE CUSTODY OF ROBERT MARK PONDER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Cueiam.\nWhen this appeal came on for argument in this Court, a motion suggesting diminution of the record was allowed and the appellant was permitted to substitute in lieu of her Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, duly certified copies of the summons and complaint filed in the case of Ossie Ponder v. Starling Ponder in the General County Court of Buncombe County, North Carolina. These certified copies show that the summons was issued in said action on 18 July 1964, the complaint was filed at 11:04 a.m. on the same day, and the summons and copy of the complaint were served on the defendant on 25 July 1964. This was two days before the petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed and the writ granted.\nOn authority of Blankenship v. Blankenship, 256 N.C. 638, 124 S.E. 2d 857, and our supervisory jurisdiction granted by Article IV, \u00a7 10, of the Constitution of North Carolina, the order of the court below is set aside and this action is dismissed.\nAction dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. E. Leake attorney for 'petitioner appellee.",
      "Robert E. Riddle, Bruce B. Briggs attorneys for respondent appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: THE CUSTODY OF ROBERT MARK PONDER.\n(Filed 15 January, 1965.)\nDivorce and Alimony \u00a7 22; Habeas\u2019 Corpus \u00a7 2; Appeal and Error \u00a7 2\u2014\nWhere it is made to appear upon diminution of the record that a proceeding for habeas corpus to obtain custody of the adopted child of the marriage was instituted by the husband in the Superior Court two days after the institution of the wife\u2019s action for alimony without divorce and custody of the child, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, will dismiss the habeas corpus proceeding. Constitution of North Carolina, Art. IV \u00a7 10.\nAppeal by respondent from Huskins, J., at Chambers in Burnsville, North Carolina, on 31 July 1964. From MadisoN.\nOn 27 July 1964, Starling Ponder, the petitioner herein, applied for and obtained a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of obtaining custody of Robert Mark Ponder, a minor child about seven years of age.\nThe petitioner and the respondent, Ossie B. Ponder, were lawfully married on 30 July 1938 and lived together as husband and wife until on or about 13 July 1964, at which time they separated and have lived separate and apart since the date of their separation. There was born of this marriage one daughter, who is now 25 years of age and married and is not involved in this proceeding.\nThe petitioner and the respondent are the adoptive parents of Robert Mark Ponder, who was born 24 December 1957 and whose custody is in controversy.\nAt the hearing on 31 July 1964, upon the writ by the Resident Judge of the Twenty-fourth Judicial District, the respondent, through her attorneys, made a motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that on 18 July 1964, prior to the time the writ of habeas corpus was issued, an action entitled Ossie Ponder v. Starling Ponder was instituted in the General County Court of Buncombe County, North Carolina, in which action the plaintiff is seeking alimony without divorce and custody of the minor child, Robert Mark Ponder.\nAt the hearing a blank summons, unsigned, and a purported complaint, which was neither signed nor verified, were offered by the respondent to establish her plea in bar. While the court allowed the admission of these papers in evidence as respondent\u2019s Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2, the court denied the respondent\u2019s motion and proceeded to hear the matter. Custody of Robert Mark Ponder was awarded to the petitioner.\nThe respondent appeals, assigning error.\nA. E. Leake attorney for 'petitioner appellee.\nRobert E. Riddle, Bruce B. Briggs attorneys for respondent appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0530-01",
  "first_page_order": 568,
  "last_page_order": 569
}