Fletcher v. Fletcher

D.C. Circuit

Fletcher v. Fletcher

43 App. D.C. 180, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2590

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedFebruary 1, 1915

DocketNo. 2730

StatusPublished

This text of 43 App. D.C. 180 (Fletcher v. Fletcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fletcher v. Fletcher, 43 App. D.C. 180, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2590 (D.C. Cir. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is contended by counsel for appellant that one is purged of contempt by a showing that, at the time of the entering of a decree, he was unable to comply therewith, even though his in[182]*182ability was caused by a fraudulent conveying away of Ms property in anticipation of tbe decree. It is unnecessary to consider this question, since it was alleged, and specifically found by the court, that appellant, apart from the property fraudulently conveyed, “still has it in his power to comply with the said decree.” No bill of excejitions appears in the record, and we must assume, therefore, that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to justify the court in making the order from which the appeal was taken. For the same reason, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is contended by counsel for appellant that one is purged of contempt by a showing that, at the time of the entering of a decree, he was unable to comply therewith, even though his in[182]*182ability was caused by a fraudulent conveying away of Ms property in anticipation of tbe decree. It is unnecessary to consider this question, since it was alleged, and specifically found by the court, that appellant, apart from the property fraudulently conveyed, “still has it in his power to comply with the said decree.” No bill of excejitions appears in the record, and we must assume, therefore, that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to justify the court in making the order from which the appeal was taken. For the same reason, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 App. D.C. 180, 1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fletcher-v-fletcher-cadc-1915.