In this State any person found guilty of willful disobedience of an order lawfully issued by any court of competent jurisdiction may be punished for contempt. G.S. 5-1 (4). Nobles v. Roberson, 212 N.C. 334, 193 S.E. 420; Elder v. Barnes, 219 N.C. 411, 14 S.E. 2d 249; Mfg. Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E. 2d 577. But an order *484of court not “lawfully issued” may not be tbe basis on which to found a proceeding for contempt. In re Foreclosure, 205 N.C. 488, 171 S.E. 788. Hence appellant on this appeal challenges, and we hold properly so, the validity of the judgment holding her for contempt on the ground that the order of 4 September, 1947, entered by Pittman, J., on which the contempt proceeding is based, is void for that Pittman, resident judge of the judicial district, had no authority to make the order, upon notice to show cause, on and at hearing out of the county and out of the district in which the action was and is pending.
Pn this connection it is provided by statute, G.S. 50-13, that “after the filing of a complaint in any action for divorce, whether from the bonds of matrimony or from bed and board, both- before and after final judgment therein, it is lawful for the judge of the court in which such application is of was pending to make such orders respecting the care, custody, tuition and maintenance of the minor children of the marriage as may be proper, and from time to time to modify or vacate such orders, and may commit their custody and tuition to the father or mother, as may be thought best.” See also In re Blake, 184 N.C. 278, 114 S.E. 300; Robbins v. Robbins, 229 N.C. 430, 50 S.E. 2d 183, and numerous other cases.
It is also provided by statute in this State, G.S. 7-65, as amended by Chapter 142 of 'Session Laws 1945, that “in all matters and proceedings not requiring intervention of a jury or in which trial by jury has been waived, the resident judge of the judicial district shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the judge holding the courts of the district and the resident judge in the exercise of concurrent jurisdiction may hear and pass upon such matters and proceedings in vacation, out of term or in term time.” Thus it appears that the resident judge of the judicial district has concurrent jurisdiction with the judge holding the courts of the district to make orders in divorce actions respecting the care, custody, tuition and maintenance of the minor children of the marriage as outlined in G.S. 50-13. But in this State 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, unless authorized so to do by statute, or by consent of the parties. Cahoon v. Brinkley, 176 N.C. 5, 96 S.E. 650; Gaster v. Thomas, 188 N.C. 346, 124 S.E. 609; Brown v. Mitchell, 207 N.C. 132, 176 S.E. 258; Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, 213 N.C. 531, 197 S.E. 8. And the consent must appear on face of record. Jeffreys v. Jeffreys, supra. Compare Pate v. Pate, 201 N.C. 402, 160 S.E. 450.
And in keeping with the well established principle that the courts will take judicial notice of the political subdivisions of their States, S. v. R. R., 141 N.C. 846, 54 S.E. 294, this Court takes judicial notice (1) that Stanly County, in which the present action was instituted and is *485pending, is in the Thirteenth Judicial District of North Carolina and (2) that Asheboro, where the order of 4 September, 1947, by Pittman, J., was made and entered in this action, is in Randolph County, in the Fifteen Judicial District of North Carolina. See Laundry v. Underwood, 220 N. C. 152, 16 S.E. 2d 703, and Mallard v. Housing Authority, 221 N.C. 334, 20 S.E. 2d 281.
Moreover, it appears in the'record on this appeal that the hearing at Asheboro was on a notice issued to defendant to appear and show cause, if any she had, why the temporary order of custody of the children of the marriage should not be made permanent.
Therefore, it clearly appears on the face of this record that Pittman, Resident Judge of the Thirteenth Judicial District, was without authority to hear the cause and to make the order of 4 September, 1947, at Ashe-boro, which is both out of the County and out of the district wherein the divorce action was or had been pending. Thus the order then made was void ah initio for lack of jurisdiction in the judge to make it, and may not be the basis for a proceeding for contempt. In re Foreclosure, supra. Compare Edmundson v. Edmundson, 222 N.C. 181, 22 S.E. 2d 576, where the judgment in question was entered by consent of parties.
For reasons stated, the judgment from which appeal is taken is
Reversed.