{
  "id": 8615770,
  "name": "FLODA P. LENTZ v. JOHN W. LENTZ",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lentz v. Lentz",
  "decision_date": "1927-12-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "673",
  "last_page": "674",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 N.C. 673"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1530,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8794352914080863e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7273761906582198
    },
    "sha256": "96636c503d5e8619d4247773ada541bc510dba65a2723e49fe97c8fc1b3b8f07",
    "simhash": "1:3dd202581fcb34d9",
    "word_count": 261
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:29.544042+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FLODA P. LENTZ v. JOHN W. LENTZ."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nThis Court rendered the opinion that the original judgment in this action was a consent judgment. Lentz v. Lentz, 193. N. C., p. 742.\nThe question presented: Is it error for the court below to hold that the defendant is not guilty of contempt in failing to pay the monthly installments due on a consent judgment? We think not.\nIn Coburn V. Comrs., 191 N. C., at p. 74, it is said: \u201cThis consent judgment left a discretionary power in the court to make such orders or decrees for the protection of the rights of all parties.\u201d\nThere is no provision in the judgment in the present action that leaves the matter open, or any provision giving the court discretionary power as the Coburn case, supra. This Court can only construe the contract \u2014 consent judgment \u2014 as written.\nThe parties might have left the matter discretionary with the court, as in the Coburn case, supra, but this they did not do.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Armfield, Sherrin & Ba)mhardt for plaintiff.",
      "Hartsell & Hartsell, W. H. Woodson and Hayden Clement for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FLODA P. LENTZ v. JOHN W. LENTZ.\n(Filed 7 December, 1927.)\nJudgments \u2014 Consent\u2014Contracts\u2014Courts\u2014Contempt.\nA judgment entered by tbe court upon tbe written consent of the parties, without express provision therein, only confers upon the courts the power to construe the contract as it is written, and excludes from it the power to adjudge a party thereto in contempt for the violation of its terms.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Townsend, Special Judge, at Special June Term, 1927, of CabarRus.\nAffirmed.\nArmfield, Sherrin & Ba)mhardt for plaintiff.\nHartsell & Hartsell, W. H. Woodson and Hayden Clement for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0673-01",
  "first_page_order": 741,
  "last_page_order": 742
}