Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

229 N.C. 248

49 S.E.2d 403

Lamm v. . Lamm

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 22, 1948

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1948-09-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Manifestly, one does not act wilfully in failing to comply with a judgment if it has not been within his power to do so since the judgment was rendered.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 21 N.C. App. 390 - Bennett v. Bennett, 45 N.C. App. 313 - Frank v. Glanville

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1948-09-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Matter of Moore (1982), Mauney v. Mauney (1966)

3 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

12019481950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ErviN, J.

¶1 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.

¶2 Error and remanded.

/229/nc/248 · .json · Public domain