Case Name: THOMASVILLE SHOOTING CLUB v. P. C. THOMAS
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1897-02
Citations: 120 N.C. 334
Docket Number: 
Parties: THOMASVILLE SHOOTING CLUB v. P. C. THOMAS.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 334–335

Head Matter:
THOMASVILLE SHOOTING CLUB v. P. C. THOMAS.
Contempt — Failure to Obey Order of Court. ■
Where a defendant in an action failed to perform the order of the Court, and, upon notice to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt, answered admitting his non-compliance, and stated that he wTas unable to perform it, but the trial judge found, as a fact, that the defendant had been since the judgment, and then was, able to perform the order, and that he was in contempt; Held, that it was proper to commit him to jail until he should comply with the judgment.
Civil actioh, pending in DavidsoN Su perior Court. From a judgment committing tbe defendant to jail for contempt of court, be appealed.
Mr. F. E. Super, for plaintiff.
Messrs. Wálser d¡ Walser, for defendant (appellant).

Opinion:
Faibcloth, C. J.:
At Spring Term, 1896, it was ordered and adjudged that tbe defendant remove a certain brick building from Winston avenue on or before September 1, 1896. Failing to obey said order, an affidavit was filed on September 8, 1896, and notice given to defendant to show cause wby be should not be attached for contempt.
Tbe return admitted non-compliance, and tbe respondent averred by affidavit that be was unable to obey tbe order. His Honor beard proofs by affidavit from both parties ana found (1) That defendant bad neglected ana refused to remove said building as be was ordered to do. (2) That said defendant has been since said judgment, a,nd still is, able to comply with tbe same, and is in contempt of court. It was thereupon ordered that tbe defendant be imprisoned in tbe county jail until be complies with tbe judgment rendered at Spring Term, 1896.
We can see no reason why the judgment, committing the defendant to prison, should not be affirmed. That part of the order directing the Sheriff to remove the building at plaintiff's cost is not appealed from, and we express no opinion about it'. Millheiser v. Bulsby, 106 N. C., 443; Baker v. Cordon, 86 N. C., 116.
Affirmed.