# Jeffreys v. . Jeffreys

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 1938 · 213 N.C. 531

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3657189

## Case

- **Full name:** Mrs. Beatrice S. Jeffreys v. M. B. Jeffreys.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** May 4, 1938
- **Citations:** 213 N.C. 531; 197 S.E. 8; 1938 N.C. LEXIS 129
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Barnhill
- **Judges:** Barnhill, Seawell
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3657189

## Opinion text

Barnhill, J.
"While it appears in the order that the parties to the action and their counsel were present and participated in the hearing at
*533
Fayetteville, it is conceded here that none of the parties were present at the time the order was signed and that the only hearing had was at Raleigh, 17 December. The defendant assails the validity of the order and the right of the judge to enter any judgment at the time and place this order was signed.
It is accepted law in this State that a judge of the Superior Court has no authority to hear a cause or to make an order substantially affecting the rights of the parties outside of the county in which the action is pending, except by consent.
Cahoon v. Brinkley,
176 N. C., 5 ;
Gaster v. Thomas,
188 N. C., 346 ;
Brown v. Mitchell,
207 N. C., 132 . Likewise, when the six months period during which a judge is regularly holding the courts of a district expires his jurisdiction in all matters pending in said district terminates, except in the matter of settling cases on appeal and the like.
The learned and careful judge who made the order appealed from no doubt acted upon the apprehension that it was agreed that he should take the cause under advisement and, after briefs were filed, render judgment at such place and at such time as met his convenience. However, no such agreement appears of record and it is now denied by the defendant that any agreement existed, except that the cause should be heard in Raleigh rather than in Louisburg. The defendant assails the order entered for the reason that there was no such consent. The record imports verity and we are bound by its contents. If it discloses no agreement, we must assume that there was none. This being true, the order entered below must be vacated and the motion reinstated for further proceeding. To that end the cause is
Remanded.
Seawell, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3657189. Public record. Not legal advice.