{
  "id": 8629647,
  "name": "ANNIE LEE BERRY v. EARL BERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Berry v. Berry",
  "decision_date": "1939-03-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "339",
  "last_page": "340",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "215 N.C. 339"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "90 S. E., 890",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 795",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11255574
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0795-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 S. E., 690",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N. C., 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660368
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/168/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N. C., 322",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8692450
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/80/0322-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S. E., 157",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 634",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629809
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0634-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S. E., 119",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627970
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0657-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S. E., 600",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 12",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8594777
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0012-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S. E., 351",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N. C., 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627127
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 S. E., 569",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N. C., 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657055
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/133/0250-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3277,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3608438240779088e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6362824627999547
    },
    "sha256": "d444b34e849829452874f2ddb26b725a3d1916d163df839a482f6caff48f4eba",
    "simhash": "1:034f7a24480590d2",
    "word_count": 585
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.554902+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ANNIE LEE BERRY v. EARL BERRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIt does not appear within what time \u201cthe defendant has earned $140.00 since the original order was signed,\u201d as the judgment bears no date, and there is no finding on the defendant\u2019s plea of disavowal. In re Odum, 133 N. C., 250, 45 S. E., 569. Hence, under authority of Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N. C., 189, 195 S. E., 351, it would seem that the record is wanting in sufficiency to support a judgment for contempt or \u201cwillful disobedience\u201d of the court\u2019s order. C. S., 978; West v. West, 199 N. C., 12, 153 S. E., 600; S. v. Clark, 207 N. C., 657, 178 S. E., 119.\nThe case is unlike Dyer v. Dyer, 213 N. C., 634, 197 S. E., 157, or Pain v. Pain, 80 N. C., 322.\nWhether the matter was properly before the resident judge \u201cat chambers\u201d is not decided. C. S., 986; In re Brown, 168 N. C., 417, 84 S. E., 690; May v. Ins. Co., 172 N. C., 795, 90 S. E., 890.\nError and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No counsel appearing for plaintiff.",
      "Barlcer & Hampton for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ANNIE LEE BERRY v. EARL BERRY.\n(Filed 22 March, 1939.)\nContempt of Court \u00a7 5: Divorce \u00a7 14 \u2014 Record and findings held insufficient to support judgment for contempt for willful disobedience of court order.\nUpon the hearing of this order to show cause why defendant should not be attached for contempt for failure to pay alimony and counsel fees as required by the prior judgment, defendant pleaded his inability to pay. The court found defendant had earned $140.00 since the original order, and adjudged defendant to be in contempt. Held: Since the judgment for contempt was not dated and fails to show the length of time during which defendant earned the sum stated, and fails to find any facts on the defendant\u2019s plea of disavowal, the record and findings are insufficient to support a judgment for contempt for \u201cwillful disobedience\u201d of a court order. C. S., 978. Whether the matter was properly before the resident judge \u201cat chambers\u201d is not decided. C. S., 986.\nAppeal by defendant from Bivens, J., at Chambers, 10 December, 1938. From Suery.\nMotion in the cause to attach defendant for contempt in failing to pay alimony and counsel fees as ordered.\nAt the September Term, 1938, Surry Superior Court, an order was entered in this cause requiring the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of $20.00 per month, commencing 15 October, 1938, as alimony, and $25.00 on attorney\u2019s fees.\nThereafter, application was made to the resident judge of the district, at chambers, for an order requiring the defendant to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt in failing to comply with said order.\nUpon the hearing before the resident judge, at chambers, the defendant undertook to purge himself of any contempt, and pleaded his inability to pay. However, \u201cthe court finds as a fact that the defendant has no real or personal property, but that he has earned the sum of $140.00 since the original order was signed and that he has not paid to his wife, the plaintiff in this cause, any sum whatsoever and has failed to comply with the judgment of Judge Clement.\u201d\n\"Whereupon, the defendant was adjudged to be in contempt, and it was ordered \u201cthat he be confined in the common jail of Surry County until he complies with said judgment.\u201d\nFrom this ruling, which bears no date, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nNo counsel appearing for plaintiff.\nBarlcer & Hampton for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0339-01",
  "first_page_order": 405,
  "last_page_order": 406
}