Lamm v. Lamm

Rachel Cooper Lamm v. Delton Lamm.

Lamm v. Lamm, 49 S.E.2d 403 (N.C. 1948)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 22, 1948
Judges: ErviN
Citations: 49 S.E.2d 403229 N.C. 2481948 N.C. LEXIS 454

Cited by 22 4 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court — ErviN

ErviN, J.

A person cannot be punished for contempt in failing to obey an order issued by a court unless his disobedience is willful. G. S., *250 5-1, subsection 4. One acts willfully when be acts knowingly and of stubborn purpose.

West v. West, 199 N. C., 12 , 153 S. E., 600 ;

In re Hege, 205 N. C., 625 , 172 S. E., 345 . Manifestly, one does not act willfully in failing to comply with a judgment if it has not been within his power to do so since the judgment was rendered. As no testimony was presented at the hearing upon the rule to show cause tending to negative the truth of the explanation made by defendant, or to establish as an affirmative fact that he possessed the means wherewith to comply with the order for alimony and counsel fees at any time after the entry of such order, the finding that the defendant willfully disobeyed the order of the court is not supported by the record, and the judgment committing him to imprisonment for contempt must be set aside.

Smithwick v. Smithwich, 218 N. C., 503 , 11 S. E. (2d), 455 ;

Berry v. Berry, 215 N. C., 339 , 1 S. E. (2d), 871 ;

Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N. C., 189 , 195 S. E., 351 ;

West v. West, supra.

It is so ordered.

Error and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(stating that “[m]anifestly, one does not act willfully in failing to comply with a judgment if it has not been within his power to do so since the judgment was rendered”)

Belcher v. Averette, 526 S.E.2d 663 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)
(necessity for “willful” criminal contempt merely required finding defendant had means to comply with prior alimony order “at any time” after its entry)

Bishop v. Bishop, 369 S.E.2d 106 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)
(contempt order set aside because “no testimony was presented ... to establish as an affirmative fact that [the alleged con-temnor] possessed the means ... to comply with the order”)

Shumaker v. Shumaker, 527 S.E.2d 55 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Shumaker v. Shumaker527 S.E.2d 55 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)
Frank v. Glanville262 S.E.2d 677 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)
Teachey v. Teachey264 S.E.2d 786 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)
In re Moore293 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. 1982)
Mauney v. Mauney150 S.E.2d 391 (N.C. 1966)
Hartsell v. Hartsell393 S.E.2d 570 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990)

Most recent

Plasman v. Decca Furniture (Usa), Inc.2016 NCBC 20 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2016)
Shumaker v. Shumaker527 S.E.2d 55 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)
Belcher v. Averette526 S.E.2d 663 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)
Hartsell v. Hartsell393 S.E.2d 570 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990)
Bishop v. Bishop369 S.E.2d 106 (N.C. Ct. App. 1988)
In re Moore293 S.E.2d 127 (N.C. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

Depth	Case	Cited by
	West v. West, 153 S.E. 600 (N.C. 1930)	21
	In re Hege, 172 S.E. 345 (N.C. 1934)	19
	Smithwick v. Smithwick, 11 S.E.2d 455 (N.C. 1940)	6
	Berry v. Berry, 1 S.E.2d 871 (N.C. 1939)	4
	Vaughan v. Vaughan, 195 S.E. 351 (N.C. 1938)	17

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list