CAROLINA WOOD TURNING COMPANY v. Wiggins
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Harriet Cotton Mills v. Local Union No. 578, Textile Workers Union of America (N.C. 1959)
- Henderson Cotton Mills v. Local Union No. 584, Textile Workers Union of America (N.C. 1959)
- Douglas Aircraft Co. v. Local Union 379 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (N.C. 1958)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
In a proceeding in which a judge of the superior court has adjudged a party guilty of contempt for disobedience of the court’s order and the contempt was not committed in the immediate presence of the court, an appeal lies from the judgment entered. However, in such a proceeding, the findings of fact by the judge are conclusive and not reviewable on appeal, if supported by any competent evidence. Cotton Mill Co. v. Textile Workers Union, 234 N.C. 545, 67 S.E. 2d 755; Bank v. Chamblee, 188 N.C. 417, 124 S.E. 741; In re Fountain, 182 N.C. 49, 108 S.E. 342, 18 A.L.R. 208; Flack v. Flack, 180 N.C. 594, 105 S.E. 268; In re T. J. Parker, 177 N.C. 463, 99 S.E. 342; Green v. Green, 130 N.C. 578, 41 S.E. 784; Young v. Rollins, 90 N.C. 125.
We have carefully examined the record in this cause, and the findings of the court below are supported by competent evidence and such findings support the judgment.
Furthermore, the punishment imposed does not exceed that provided by law. G.S. 5-4. Hence, the judgment is affirmed. Erwin Mills v. Textile Workers Union, 235 N.C. 107, 68 S.E. 2d 813; Cotton Mill Co. v. Textile Workers Union, supra; Cotton Mills v. Abrams, 231 N.C. 431, 57 S.E. 2d 803; Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 228 N.C. 375, 45 S.E. 2d 577, and cited cases.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.