Court Opinion

ID: 9559787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:35:41.6552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:44.125191
License: Public Domain

NOURSE, P. J.
I dissent.
The McCarty case is based wholly on the technical ground *232that after he had been given five days to comply with the alimony order McCarty was committed for contempt without an affidavit having been filed showing that he had not paid and without further hearing.
Such is not the case here. The order of commitment of September 14, 1954, recites (and these recitals are binding upon us) that pursuant to an “affidavit for order to show cause in re contempt, ’ ’ and pursuant to an order to show cause issued thereon, the defendant appeared in person on the date set—September 14, 1954; that evidence was taken, that defendant “admitted that he was in default of the orders of said court”; that the court finds that defendant “had and has the ability to pay”; and made no valid excuse for his failure' to comply.
This takes the case wholly outside the McCarty case. If, as argued by petition, but no proof being made thereof, a warrant of attachment was issued on August 25, 1954, it is wholly immaterial. The order of commitment recites that an affidavit and order to show cause was filed. The defendant appeared at the time set and voluntarily took part in the hearing without, however, any objection to the form of the summons. He may not now claim that he was improperly summoned.