Little v. . Little

166 S.E. 809, 203 N.C. 694, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 77

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is manifest from the findings of fact that the defendant is financially able to comply with the order of the court. The case of West v. West, 199 N. C., 12, is therefore not in point. The court found, moreover, that the defendant’s refusal to obey the order was wilful, “with utter contempt,” and characterized by an absence of any effort to respect the court’s direction. He alone is responsible for the consequences of his contemptuous conduct. Judgment

Affirmed.