Little v. . Little

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Little v. . Little

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

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 14, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 S.E. 809 (Little v. . Little) 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

Little v. . Little, 166 S.E. 809, 203 N.C. 694, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 77 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 S.E. 809, 203 N.C. 694, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 77, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-little-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack