Fletcher v. Fletcher

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit February 1, 1915

Fletcher v. Fletcher, 43 App. D.C. 180 (D.C. Cir. 1915)

1915 U.S. App. LEXIS 2590

Orsdel

Opinion of the Court

Mr. Justice Van Orsdel

delivered the opinion of the Court:

It is contended by counsel for appellant that one is purged of contempt by a showing that, at the time of the entering of a decree, he was unable to comply therewith, even though his in*182ability was caused by a fraudulent conveying away of Ms property in anticipation of tbe decree. It is unnecessary to consider this question, since it was alleged, and specifically found by the court, that appellant, apart from the property fraudulently conveyed, “still has it in his power to comply with the said decree.” No bill of excejitions appears in the record, and we must assume, therefore, that the evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to justify the court in making the order from which the appeal was taken. For the same reason, it is unnecessary to consider the other assignments of error.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: FLETCHER v. FLETCHER
Status: Published
Syllabus: Appeae and Error; Contempt of Court; Divorce and Alimont. 1. Where there is no bill of exceptions in the record on appeal, the appellate court will assume that the evidence adduced on the trial was sufficient to justify the lower court in making the order or decree from which the appeal was taken. 2. Whether a party charged with contempt of court for failure to obey a decree requiring him to pay alimony purges himself of contempt by showing that at the time of the entry of the decree he was unable to comply with it, even though his inability was caused by a fraudulent conveyance of his property in anticipation of the passage of the decree, is unnecessary to determine, where the evidence shows that, apart from the property so fraudulently conveyed, such party still had the power to comply with the decree, but failed to do so.