Stanley v. Stanley

Decision Date27 February 1946
Docket Number22
Citation37 S.E.2d 118,226 N.C. 129
PartiesSTANLEY v. STANLEY.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

The plaintiff brought this proceeding by petition or motion in the cause to procure a citation of the defendant for contempt of court under the following circumstances:

The plaintiff and defendant were united in marriage sometime in 1920, and lived together until March 1942. On April 17 of that year they entered into a separation agreement, in which it was provided that the husband should pay into the hands of the County Welfare Officer for the wife's support $8 per week, these payments to continue though the husband should later obtain a divorce.

Thereafter on April 20, 1944, the husband, present defendant, instituted an action against the wife, plaintiff herein, for absolute divorce, on the grounds of two years separation; and decree was entered in October 1944, granting to the plaintiff (present defendant) an absolute divorce. The judgment contained the following provision: 'By consent, it is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that this judgment shall in no way prejudice the defendant's rights to maintenance and support under that certain agreement between the parties hereto, dated April 17, 1942, a copy of which is held by each party.'

Thereafter on November 16, 1944, the divorced wife brought an action against this defendant in the Superior Court of Pasquotank County to enforce the terms of the separation agreement, in which she set up the same, alleged noncompliance on the part of defendant, and asked for judgment against the defendant for arrears of payments amounting to $240. The judgment of Dixon, J., based upon findings of fact, sets out the terms of the separation agreement, the above stated provision in the divorce decree, and the failure of defendant to make the stipulated payments, and concludes as follows: 'It is thereupon on motion of George J. Spence, attorney for plaintiff, ordered, decreed by the Court that the plaintiff recover judgment against the defendant for the sum of two hundred and forty dollars and for the costs of this action ' The judgment imposes no duties upon the defendant other than thus stated.

Thereafter on October 4, 1945, the plaintiff filed a petition or motion in the cause, reciting the rendition of the above judgment, the findings of fact that the 'defendant Eddie Stanley had failed and refused to pay into the hands of A. H. Outlaw, Welfare Officer, for delivery to Gracie Mae Stanley, the sum of $240, same being for thirty weeks at the rate of $8 per week from October 4, 1944, to May 7, 1945,' and adds 'the same being for support, maintenance and alimony as set out in said judgment'; and the petition prays that a citation be served on the defendant to show cause why he shall not be adjudged in contempt of court for failure to comply with said judgment.

Citation was accordingly issued, and the matter came on for hearing before Harris, J., who rendered the following judgment:

'This cause coming on to be heard at this term before the Honorable W. C. Harris, Judge, upon a citation heretofore issued in this cause by Honorable C. E. Thompson, Judge of the First Judicial District of North Carolina, returnable before the undersigned and it appearing to the Court and the Court finding as facts that at the May Term, 1945, of the Superior Court of Pasquotank County, a judgment was duly signed in the above entitled action requiring the defendant, Eddie L. Stanley, to pay into the hands of A. H. Outlaw, Welfare Officer, for delivery to Gracie Mae Stanley the sum of two hundred and forty ($240.00) dollars, same being for thirty weeks at the rate of eight ($8.00) dollars a week from October 9, 1944, to May 7, 1945, the same being for the support, maintenance and alimony due the said Gracie Mae Stanley, and it further appearing to the Court that the defendant, Eddie L. Stanley, has failed and refused to pay into the hands of A. H. Outlaw, Welfare Officer, for the delivery to Gracie Mae Stanley, the sum of $240, same being for thirty weeks at the rate of $8 a week from October 9, 1944, to May 7, 1945, the same being for the support, maintenance and alimony due the said Gracie Mae Stanley;

'It is thereupon ordered, decreed and adjudged by the Court that the said Eddie L. Stanley, the defendant herein, is hereby adjudged in contempt of Court for failure to pay said sums as aforesaid, and it is further ordered, decreed and adjudged by the Court that the said Eddie L. Stanley, defendant as aforesaid, be committed to the County jail of the County of Pasquotank to be held until he shall pay said sum of $240 to the said A. H. Outlaw, Welfare Officer, for delivery to Gracie Mae Stanley, same being for thirty weeks at the rate of $8 a week from October 9, 1944, to May 7, 1945, the same being for the support, maintenance and alimony due the said Gracie Mae Stanley.

'It further appearing to the Court and the Court finding as a fact that the said Eddie L. Stanley, defendant as aforesaid, has failed to pay into the hands of A. H.

Outlaw, Welfare Officer, for delivery to Gracie Mae Stanley, for her support, maintenance and alimony any sum since May 7, 1945, at which time the said sum of $240 became due, and it appearing to the Court that there is now past due twenty-six weekly installments at the rate of eight ($8.00) dollars a week amounting to $208.00:

'It is thereupon ordered, decreed and adjudged by the Court that Eddie L. Stanley be, and he is hereby ordered to at once pay to the said A. H. Outlaw, as aforesaid, the additional sum...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Oedekoven v. Oedekoven
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • August 12, 1975
    ...71; Horcasitas v. House, 1965, 75 N.M. 317, 404 P.2d 140; Wright v. Stidham, 1964, 95 Ariz. 316, 390 P.2d 107; and Stanley v. Stanley, 1946, 226 N.C. 129, 37 S.E.2d 118. The reasoning in the cited cases is that a mere approval of a property settlement agreement is not a command to pay what ......
  • King v. Rudd
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 27, 1946
  • Riddle v. Riddle, 7625SC588
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • January 5, 1977
    ...118 (1956), and Brown v. Brown, 224 N.C. 556, 31 S.E.2d 529 (1944). We find further support for our determination in Stanley v. Stanley, 226 N.C. 129, 37 S.E.2d 118 (1946), where the court held that a separation agreement similar to the one in this case '. . . was an extrajudicial transacti......
  • Sainz v. Sainz
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • June 20, 1978
    ...non-compliance, by reason of the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt. N.C.Const., Art. I, § 28; Stanley v. Stanley, 226 N.C. 129, 37 S.E.2d 118 (1946); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 270 N.C. 253, 154 S.E.2d 71 (1967). Based upon the above reasoning, this Court recently held tha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT