¶1 The assignments of error may be disposed of in this cause by a consideration of the question: Did His Honor have authority to enter the order at May Term, 1942, of the Superior Court of Buncombe County, as set forth above ?
¶2 The appellant contends that the motion of the solicitor in this cause is tantamount to an appeal from one Superior Court judge to another. This contention is untenable. This cause was properly transferred' to the Superior Court, and the statute, Public Laws of 1933, ch. 228, as amended by Public-Local Laws of 1937, ch. 432, as amended by Public Laws of 1939, ch. 217, N. C. Code, 1939 (Michie), sec. 276 (f), expressly provides where the defendant has been determined to be the father of an illegitimate child “. . . The Court shall fix by order, subject to modification or increase from time to time, a specific sum of money necessary for the support and maintenance of the particular' child who is the object of the proceedings.”
¶3 It is the general rule that the trial court loses jurisdiction to modify a judgment after the adjournment of the term. There are exceptions to this rule, however, and one of the exceptions is to a judgment or order in a bastardy proceeding for the support of an illegitimate child. His Honor, at the April Term, 1941, did not have authority to strike out the plea or the judgment entered prior thereto in this cause. S. v. Auman, 35 N. C., 242. However, under the statutes now in force in this State, the court did have authority to modify the conditions of the judgment entered in this cause. To that extent, and to that extent only, was the order valid. The plea of guilty and the judgment thus modified, remained on the docket of the Superior Court, subject to the further orders of the court which might be entered from time to time, pursuant to the provisions of applicable statutes.
¶4 In the case of Story v. Story, 221 N. C., 114, 19 S. E. (2d), 136, the plaintiff contended that the consent order for the custody and support *14 of a child, in a divorce proceedings, could not be modified without the consent of the parties. The Court held: “Upon the institution of a divorce action the court acquires jurisdiction over any child born of tlie marriage and may hear and determine questions both as to the custody and as to the maintenance of such child either before or after the final decree of divorce. C. S., 1664; Tyner v. Tyner, 206 N. C., 176, 175 S. E., 144; Sanders v. Sanders, supra (167 N. C., 319, 83 S. E., 490). No agreement or contract between husband and wife will serve to deprive the court of its inherent as well as statutory authority to protect the interests and provide for the welfare of infants. They may bind themselves by separate agreement or by a consent judgment. In re Albertson, 205 N. C., 742, 172 S. E., 411; Morris v. Patterson, 180 N. C., 484, 105 S. E., 25; Webster v. Webster, 213 N. C., 135, 195 S. E., 362; but they cannot thus withdraw children of the marriage from the protective custody of the court. In re Albertson, supra; Tyner v. Tyner, supra. The child is not a party to such agreement and the parents cannot contract away the jurisdiction of the court which is always alert in the discharge of its duty towards its wards — the children of the State whose personal or property interests require protection.”
¶5 The Court is equally alert to exercise its power to protect illegitimate children who are entitled to the benefit of laws enacted by the General Assembly to provide for their support and maintenance.
¶6 We hold His Honor did have authority to enter the order at May Term, 1942, of the Superior Court of Buncombe County, from which defendant appeals. The exceptions of the defendant cannot be sustained, and the judgment of the court below is
¶7 Affirmed.