Bank of Zebulon v. Chamblee

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Bank of Zebulon v. Chamblee

124 S.E. 741, 188 N.C. 417, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 88

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 22, 1924

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 124 S.E. 741 (Bank of Zebulon v. Chamblee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of Zebulon v. Chamblee, 124 S.E. 741, 188 N.C. 417, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 88 (N.C. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, J.

It is provided in C. S., 978 and 981, -among other things, that any person found guilty of willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued by any court, or of resistance, willfully offered, to the lawful order or process of any court, shall be held to have committed a contempt of court, and fined not -exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned not exceeding thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. In re Parker, 177 N. C., 463. Where the contempt has not been committed within the immediate presence or verge of the court, an appeal lies from the judgment entered below. C. S., 979; Ex parte McCown, 139 N. C., 95; In re Walker, 82 N. C., 95. The findings of fact, made by the judge of the Superior Court in such proceedings and which are required to be “specified on the record” (S. v. Mott, 49 N. C., 449), are conclusive upon us, when supported by any competent evidence. Young v. Rollins, 90 N. C., 125. But it has been held that where the facts have been found by an inferior tribunal, on appeal to the Superior Court, it is the duty of the judge hearing the matter to review the findings of fact as well as the rulings of law; and, if justice require it, he may hear additional evidence, orally or by affidavit, in making up his own findings of fact. In re Deaton, 105 N. C., 59.

*419 In the instant proceeding, it bas been found, upon competent and ample evidence, that the respondent, in willful and deliberate violation of the court’s order, purposely and intentionally disposed of some $3,800.00 or $4,000.00 with the specific design to thwart the processes of the court. The respondent replies by saying that he used the moneys in question to pay debts which he then owed, alleging that he was ignorant of the law and thought he had a perfect right to use the money in this way. He disclaims any intentional contempt or contumacious conduct. But the crucial facts have been determined against him.

Upon the facts as found, we have discovered no valid reason for disturbing the order and judgment entered in the Superior Court. In re Brown, 168 N. C., 417.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stacy, J.

It is provided in C. S., 978 and 981, -among other things, that any person found guilty of willful disobedience of any process or order lawfully issued by any court, or of resistance, willfully offered, to the lawful order or process of any court, shall be held to have committed a contempt of court, and fined not -exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned not exceeding thirty days, or both, in the discretion of the court. In re Parker, 177 N. C., 463. Where the contempt has not been committed within the immediate presence or verge of the court, an appeal lies from the judgment entered below. C. S., 979; Ex parte McCown, 139 N. C., 95; In re Walker, 82 N. C., 95. The findings of fact, made by the judge of the Superior Court in such proceedings and which are required to be “specified on the record” (S. v. Mott, 49 N. C., 449), are conclusive upon us, when supported by any competent evidence. Young v. Rollins, 90 N. C., 125. But it has been held that where the facts have been found by an inferior tribunal, on appeal to the Superior Court, it is the duty of the judge hearing the matter to review the findings of fact as well as the rulings of law; and, if justice require it, he may hear additional evidence, orally or by affidavit, in making up his own findings of fact. In re Deaton, 105 N. C., 59.

*419 In the instant proceeding, it bas been found, upon competent and ample evidence, that the respondent, in willful and deliberate violation of the court’s order, purposely and intentionally disposed of some $3,800.00 or $4,000.00 with the specific design to thwart the processes of the court. The respondent replies by saying that he used the moneys in question to pay debts which he then owed, alleging that he was ignorant of the law and thought he had a perfect right to use the money in this way. He disclaims any intentional contempt or contumacious conduct. But the crucial facts have been determined against him.

Upon the facts as found, we have discovered no valid reason for disturbing the order and judgment entered in the Superior Court. In re Brown, 168 N. C., 417.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 S.E. 741, 188 N.C. 417, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 88, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-zebulon-v-chamblee-nc-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack