Sayland Ex Rel. McLendon v. Sayland
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSharp, J.
The 1954 judgment, which defendant seeks to modify, did not merely give judicial sanction to the parties’ agreement; the court adopted that agreement as its own determination of defendant’s obligation to plaintiff, and ordered him to make the specified payments set out therein. Thus, it was an order of the court which it may modify at any time changed conditions and the ends of justice require. Bunn v. Bunn, 262 N.C. 67, 136 S.E. 2d 240; Stancil v. Stancil, 255 N.C. 507, 121 S.E. 2d 882; Barber v. Barber, 217 N.C. 422, 8 S.E. 2d 204. A change of circumstances or conditions must be…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Bunn v. BunnSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
- Bowling v. BowlingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Stancil v. StancilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- Mercer v. MercerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- Barber v. . BarberSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- White v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- Quick v. QuickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Clark v. ClarkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- White v. WhiteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.