Campbell v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 30 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 384.,384. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | CAMPBELL. v. CAMPBELL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Rowan County; H. Hoyle Sink, Judge.
Action by Eltha Kesler Campbell against Joseph W. Campbell, wherein the petitioner moved to have respondent subjected to a contempt order for refusing to pay amounts alleged to be due under a prior judgment. From an order dismissing the motion, the petitioner appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
C. P. Barringer, of Salisbury, for petitioner.
Walter H. Woodson, Jr., of Salisbury, for respondent.
The respondent and petitioner are husband and wife, and have for some years lived separate and apart. The petitioner, in a motion purporting to be made in a pending action, sought to have the respondent subjected to a contempt order for re fusing to pay amounts alleged to be due under a prior judgment, inferentially appearing to have been entered in a pending action. Upon the hearing Judge Sink dismissed the motion, assigning as his reason that the judgment exhibited (rendered by Rousseau, J, in 1943) was a consent judgment, with no provision for extending its terms or otherwise continuing the jurisdiction of the court; is a contract between the parties not enforceable by a contempt proceeding.
On this appeal the petitioner did not cause the pleadings in the action in which the consent judgment was entered to be brought up as a part of the record. They are a necessary part of the record, both as determining the character of the action, and the jurisdiction and power of the court. G.S. § 1-284. For this reason the appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal. The motion is allowed. Allen v. Hammond, 122 N.C. 754, 30 S.E. 16; Mitchell v. Moore, 62 N.C. 281; Ericson v. Ericson, 226 N.C. 474, 475, 476, 38 S.E.2d 517.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...and judgment are necessary parts of the record proper. Williams v. Contracting Company, 259 N.C. 232, 130 S.E.2d 340; Campbell v. Campbell, 226 N.C. 653, 39 S.E.2d 812; 1 Strong's N.C. Index 2d Appeal and Error § The judgment here is regular in form; we must, therefore, consider whether the......
-
Thrush v. Thrush, 165
...County v. Norfolk Southern Land Co., 222 N.C. 637, 24 S.E. 2d 338; Ericson v. Ericson, 226 N.C. 474, 38 S.E.2d 517; Campbell v. Campbell, 226 N.C. 653, 39 S.E.2d 812; Macon v. Murray, 240 N.C. 116, 81 S.E.2d 126; Griffin v. Barnes, 242 N.C. 306, 87 S.E.2d The foregoing citation of authority......