{
  "id": 8573623,
  "name": "ELIZABETH F. GORRELL, Plaintiff v. C. PAUL GORRELL, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gorrell v. Gorrell",
  "decision_date": "1965-05-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "403",
  "last_page": "404",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 N.C. 403"
    }
  ],
  "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": "195 S.E. 351",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "353"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627127
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "193"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 403",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "404"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12165445
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "250"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S.E. 2d 867",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621319
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 S.E. 2d 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 N.C. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622411
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/248/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 S.E. 2d 370",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "372"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 N.C. 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626222
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "225"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/247/0223-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 3090,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.014647952524767e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7446459233723665
    },
    "sha256": "aa233733e80e8afc11c4ea8439d69b863ed5d2f04986f11151ed0ac6ef3ece3f",
    "simhash": "1:d3aa0039b67fb046",
    "word_count": 526
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:18:06.877661+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ELIZABETH F. GORRELL, Plaintiff v. C. PAUL GORRELL, Defendant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cueiam.\nThe order attaching defendant for contempt is fatally defective in that it is not supported by a finding of fact that defendant\u2019s failure to make the required payments was wilful. \u201cOur decisions uniformly hold that in contempt proceedings it is necessary for the court to find the facts supporting the judgment and especially the facts as to the purpose and object of the contemner, since nothing short of \u2018willful disobedience\u2019 will justify punishment.\u201d Smith v. Smith, 247 N.C. 223, 225, 100 S.E. 2d 370, 372; accord, Smith v. Smith, 248 N.C. 298, 103 S.E. 2d 400; Yow v. Yow, 243 N.C. 79, 89 S.E. 2d 867.\nBefore the court may determine whether a husband\u2019s failure to pay is a wilful disobedience of its orders, i.e., done \u201cknowingly and of stubborn purpose,\u201d Lamm v. Lamm, 229 N.C. 248, 250, 49 S.E. 2d 403, 404, the judge must \u201cfind what are his assets and liabilities and his ability to pay and work \u2014 an inventory of his financial condition,\u201d Vaughan v. Vaughan, 213 N.C. 189, 193, 195 S.E. 351, 353.\nThe order of arrest must be struck. The cause is remanded for further proceedings.\nError and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. Comer for plaintiff appellee.",
      "Cahoon \u25a0& Swisher for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ELIZABETH F. GORRELL, Plaintiff v. C. PAUL GORRELL, Defendant.\n(Filed 5 May, 1965.)\nContempt of Court \u00a7 3\u2014\nIn order to support a commitment for contempt for failure to pay into court sums directed by prior order, the court must find facts in regard to defendant\u2019s assets and liabilities and his ability to pay and work, sufficient to support a finding that the failure to pay was wilful.\nAppeal by defendant from Gambill, J., in chambers in Guilfoed.\nAction for alimony without divorce.\nOn June 26, 1964, Judge Gwyn entered an order requiring, inter alia, that defendant pay $20.00 each Monday to the office of the Domestic Relations Court for the use of plaintiff pendente lite. He further ordered defendant to pay plaintiff\u2019s counsel a fee of $125.00. On August 10, 1964, plaintiff filed an affidavit in which she averred that defendant had made no payment. Pursuant to an order to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt, on September 8, 1964, defendant appeared with his counsel \u2022 before Judge Gambill. Plaintiff did not appear. The record discloses the following proceedings only: \u201cThe defendant exhibited to the Court the record of his income, showing that he had not been financially able to make the payments required in the order entered by the Hon. Allen H. Gwyn, and that he had not wil-fully violated the court order. No further evidence was presented.\u201d\nOn September 11, 1964, Judge Gambill, acting under G.S. 5-8, found that defendant has refused, and still refuses, to make the payments specified in the order of June 26, 1964, \u201cand has failed to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt.\u201d He committed defendant to jail, \u201cthere to remain\u201d until the sums due under Judge Gwyn\u2019s order and the costs of the contempt proceeding \u201cshall be paid\u201d and \u201cuntil he be thence discharged according to law.\u201d From this \u201cwarrant for commitment,\u201d defendant appeals.\nJohn F. Comer for plaintiff appellee.\nCahoon \u25a0& Swisher for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0403-01",
  "first_page_order": 439,
  "last_page_order": 440
}