Motor Finance Co v. Putnam
| Decision Date | 01 December 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 603.,603. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | MOTOR FINANCE CO. v. PUTNAM. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; John J. Burney, Judge.
Action by Motor Finance Company against J. Claude Putnam wherein plaintiff instituted proceedings supplemental to execution against radio station WMFD. From a judgment that the radio station and R. A. Dunlea, one of its officers, were not guilty of contempt, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
The plaintiff, Motor Finance Company, recovered a judgment against the defendant, J. Claude Putnam, an employee of Radio Station WMFD. Execution was issued, and returned unsatisfied. The plaintiff then instituted proceedings supplemental to execution against the Radio Station under Article 31 of the General Statutes, and obtained an order from the Clerk of the Superior Court, requiring R. A. Dunlea, an officer of the Radio Station, to appear before the Clerk at his office in the courthouse on January 7, 1948, for examination under G.S. § 1-360, and forbidding Radio Station to make any disposition of "the property of J. Claude Putnam not exempt from execution or any debt due to the said J. Claude Putnam until further orders in the premises." This order was issued and served December 23, 1947.
Radio Station WMFD has never had any property of the defendant in its possession, and was not indebted to him in any way when the above order was signed and served. But between December 23, 1947, and January 7, 1948, the Radio Station paid $100.00 to Putnam for salary accruing subsequent to December 23, 1947. The record does not affirmatively disclose that Radio Station WMFD is a legal entity, or what duties were assigned by it to Dunlea. It is assumed here, however, that the Radio Station is a corporation, and than Dunlea had complete charge of its affairs at the times in controversy.
Dunlea appeared before the Clerk at the time and place specified in the order of December 23, 1947, and was examined on oath by counsel for plaintiff, who thereby discovered that Radio Station WMFD had made the payment of salary set forth above. The plaintiff thereupon moved that the Radio Station and Dunlea be attached as for a contempt of court under G.S. § 1-368 on the ground that the payment was made in willful disobedience of the order, of December 23, 1947. While the record is silent on the point, it is assumed here that the contempt proceedings were initiated by an order to show cause in conformity to G.S. § 5-7.
At the hearing, the court found and adjudged in substance that Radio Station WMFD and Dunlea had not disobeyed the order and were not guilty of any contempt. From judgment accordingly, the plaintiff appealed.
Walton Peter Burkhimer, of Wilmington, for plaintiff-appellant.
J. Hardie Ferguson, of Wilmington, for Radio Station WMFD and R. A. Dunlea.
The order of the Clerk forbade Radio Station WMFD to make any disposition of "the property of J. Claude Putnam not exempt from execution or any debt due to the said J. Claude Putnam until further orders in the premises."
The plaintiff asserts that the Radio Station willfully disobeyed the order by paying to the defendant salary accruing after the issuance and service of the order, and that by reason thereof the court below erred in refusing to punish the Radio Station and its general manager, Dunlea, as for a contempt under G. S. § 1-368.
The plaintiff's position is untenable because the order could apply only to prop...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re McAllister, Bankruptcy No. 95-03468-BGC-7
...Prospective earnings of a judgment debtor are entirely hypothetical. They are neither property nor a debt. Motor Finance Co. v. Putnam, 229 N.C. 555, 50 S.E.2d 670, 671 (1948). And, of wages earned by the judgment debtor for personal services within 60 days of the service of the garnishment......
-
Stone, In re, 27570
...United States v. Williams, Md., 370 A.2d 1134 (1977); 6 Bendix v. Hoy, 207 Md. 225, 114 A.2d 45 (1955); Motor Finance Co. v. Putnam, 229 N.C. 555, 50 S.E.2d 670 (1948); see also 6 Am.Jur.2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 177 Therefore, we hold that C.R.C.P. 103 does not allow continuing wri......
-
Radiance Capital Receivables Twenty One, LLC v. Lancsek
...of the judgment debtor in the hands of the third person . . . at the time of the issuance and service of the order[.] 229 N.C. 555, 557, 50 S.E.2d 670, 671 (1948); see Cornelius v. Albertson, 244 N.C. 265, 267-68, 93 S.E.2d 147, 149 (1956) (explaining the procedure of Section 1-360 when a p......
-
Harris v. Hinson
...They are neither property nor a debt. Hill v. Central Trust Co., 33 Ohio App. 204, 168 N.E. 768 (1929)." Finance Co. v. Putnam, 229 N.C. 555, 557, 50 S.E.2d 670, 671 (1948). According to Putnam our statutes regarding proceedings supplemental to execution were designed after those of the Sta......