Dyer v. . Dyer

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Dyer v. . Dyer

197 S.E. 157, 213 N.C. 634, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 159

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 25, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 197 S.E. 157 (Dyer v. . Dyer) 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

Dyer v. . Dyer, 197 S.E. 157, 213 N.C. 634, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 159 (N.C. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant petitioned in the pending cause asking for a modification of the original order granting alimony and for his discharge because of his inability to pay it.

The defendant is bound by the facts adversely found by the court below upon competent evidence, and is not entitled to relief in this Court. Lodge v. Gibbs, 159 N. C., 66, 69; Bank v. Chamblee, 188 N. C., 417, 124 S. E., 748. His contention that the court was without power to make an order, the effect of which might be to confine him in jail for more than thirty days, is without merit. Green v. Green, 130 N. C., 578, 41 S. E., 784; Cromartie v. Comrs., 85 N. C., 211.

Criminal contempt is a term applied where the judgment is in punishment of an act already accomplished, tending to interfere with the administration of justice. C. S., 978. Civil contempt is a term applied where the proceeding is had “to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to suits and to compel obedience to orders and decrees made for the benefit of such parties.” 12 Am. Jur., Contempt, section 6. Eesort to this proceeding is common to enforce orders in the equity jurisdiction of the court, orders for the payment of alimony, and in like matters. In North Carolina, such proceeding is authorized by statute. C. S., 985.

The contempt with which we are dealing in the present case falls within the latter category and is unaffected by 0. S., 981, prescribing a thirty-day limit to imprisonment for contempts falling within the provisions of the preceding sections. Green v. Green, supra; Cromartie v. Comrs., supra; Thompson v. Onley, 96 N. C., 9, 5 S. E., 120.

One who is imprisoned for contempt in an alimony case need not serve indefinitely. There are other proceedings under which he might obtain his discharge upon a proper showing. Under this proceeding, however, such relief may not be given.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant petitioned in the pending cause asking for a modification of the original order granting alimony and for his discharge because of his inability to pay it.

The defendant is bound by the facts adversely found by the court below upon competent evidence, and is not entitled to relief in this Court. Lodge v. Gibbs, 159 N. C., 66, 69; Bank v. Chamblee, 188 N. C., 417, 124 S. E., 748. His contention that the court was without power to make an order, the effect of which might be to confine him in jail for more than thirty days, is without merit. Green v. Green, 130 N. C., 578, 41 S. E., 784; Cromartie v. Comrs., 85 N. C., 211.

Criminal contempt is a term applied where the judgment is in punishment of an act already accomplished, tending to interfere with the administration of justice. C. S., 978. Civil contempt is a term applied where the proceeding is had “to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to suits and to compel obedience to orders and decrees made for the benefit of such parties.” 12 Am. Jur., Contempt, section 6. Eesort to this proceeding is common to enforce orders in the equity jurisdiction of the court, orders for the payment of alimony, and in like matters. In North Carolina, such proceeding is authorized by statute. C. S., 985.

The contempt with which we are dealing in the present case falls within the latter category and is unaffected by 0. S., 981, prescribing a thirty-day limit to imprisonment for contempts falling within the provisions of the preceding sections. Green v. Green, supra; Cromartie v. Comrs., supra; Thompson v. Onley, 96 N. C., 9, 5 S. E., 120.

One who is imprisoned for contempt in an alimony case need not serve indefinitely. There are other proceedings under which he might obtain his discharge upon a proper showing. Under this proceeding, however, such relief may not be given.

The judgment is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 S.E. 157, 213 N.C. 634, 1938 N.C. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dyer-v-dyer-nc-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack