Berry v. . Berry

1 S.E.2d 871, 215 N.C. 339, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 262
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 22, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 1 S.E.2d 871 (Berry v. . Berry) 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
Berry v. . Berry, 1 S.E.2d 871, 215 N.C. 339, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 262 (N.C. 1939).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

It does not appear within what time “the defendant has earned $140.00 since the original order was signed,” as the judgment bears no date, and there is no finding on the defendant’s plea of disavowal. In re Odum, 133 N. C., 250, 45 S. E., 569. Hence, under authority of Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N. C., 189, 195 S. E., 351, it would seem that the record is wanting in sufficiency to support a judgment for contempt or “willful disobedience” of the court’s order. C. S., 978; West v. West, 199 N. C., 12, 153 S. E., 600; S. v. Clark, 207 N. C., 657, 178 S. E., 119.

The case is unlike Dyer v. Dyer, 213 N. C., 634, 197 S. E., 157, or Pain v. Pain, 80 N. C., 322.

Whether the matter was properly before the resident judge “at chambers” is not decided. C. S., 986; In re Brown, 168 N. C., 417, 84 S. E., 690; May v. Ins. Co., 172 N. C., 795, 90 S. E., 890.

Error and remanded.

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

Related

Smith v. Smith
103 S.E.2d 400 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Yow v. Yow
89 S.E.2d 867 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
Lamm v. . Lamm
49 S.E.2d 403 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)
Smithwick v. . Smithwick
11 S.E.2d 455 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 S.E.2d 871, 215 N.C. 339, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-berry-nc-1939.