4. Order or Injunction Erroneously Granted. Though an order of court or an injunction may be improperly or improvidently granted, it must be obeyed until vacated or dissolved. No matter how unreasonable in its terms or unjust in its operation it may prove, disobedience of it is a contempt.1 5. Irregularity in Exercise of Power. Though a party cannot be guilty of contempt for disobeying an order which the court had no authority to make, such want of power must not be confused with mere irregularity in its exercise. Where the court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subjectmatter, and authority to make the order, a refusal to obey it is a contempt, however irregularly, improvidently, or erroneously made. Mere irregularity or error in the procedure, or in the order itself, will not justify a disobedience of the writ.2 6. Want of Jurisdiction to Make the Order. A refusal to obey an injunction New York. Moat v. Holbein, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 188; People v. Sturtevant, 9 N. Y. 263, 59 Am. Dec. 536; Sullivan v. Judah, 4 Paige (N. Y.) 444; People v. McKane, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 161; Erie R. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 N. Y. 637; Schell v. Erie R. Co., 51 Barb. (N. Y.) 377: People v. Bergen, 53 N. Y. 404. South Carolina. State v. Nathans, (S. Car. 1897) 27 S. E. Rep. 52; James v. Smith, 2 S. Car. 183. Tennessee. (Tenn.) 58. Vermont. Rutherford v. Metcalf, 5 Hayw. - Howe v. Willard, 40 Vt. 662; Stimpson v. Putnam, 41 Vt. 238. West Virginia. State v. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co., 16 W. Va. 877. Wisconsin. Kaehler v. Halpin, 59 Wis. 40. Where the Court Had Jurisdiction of the Parties and of the Subject-matter, the fact that an order of injunction has been erroneously granted affords no justification for its violation, which is properly punished as a contempt. v. Erhart, 35 Kan. 616. Billard On an appeal from an order of the court committing a defendant to the county jail for refusing to obey a prior order requiring him to assign and hand over certain property to a receiver, no error in such prior order can be considered. The only question that can be considered is whether the court had jurisdiction to make it. Tolman v. Jones, 114 Ill. 147. An attachment for contempt is the proper mode of enforcing obedience to an order of injunction, even though erroneous. State v. Baldwin, 57 Iowa 266. An injunction, however erroneously issued, must be respected; the fact that it has been erroneously granted affords no justification for its violation. Kerfoot v. People, 51 Ill. App. 410. While an injunction is in operation the failure of a party to respect it is a flagrant contempt of court, even though improperly issued. Moat v. Holbein, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 188. In an attachment for contempt in failing to obey an order of the court, the respondent may question the order which he is charged with refusing to obey, only in so far as he can show it to be absolutely void for want of jurisdiction either of the party, the subjectmatter, or the authority to pronounce the particular judgment. Clark v. Burke, 163 Ill. 334. No Indemnity Awarded to Adverse Party. - A person may be punished for the violation of an injunctional order, although such order was improperly granted; but he cannot, in such case, be compelled to pay any sum as indemnity to the opposite party. Kaehler v. Halpin, 59 Wis. 40. Facts Subsequently Occurring No Excuse for a Violation. If an order within the jurisdiction of the court is erroneously granted, the remedy of the party aggrieved is by an application to vacate it; it cannot be reviewed upon an application to punish for disobedience of it. If facts occur subsequently, they will not avail as an excuse for disobeying the order. Such disobedience is a contempt. People v. v. Bergen, 53 N. Y. 405. 2. Irregularity Merely United States. Elliott v. Peirsal. I Pet. (U. S.) 340; Ex p. Watkins, 3 Pet. (U. S.) 193. - Alabama. Exp. Stickney, 40 Ala. 160. Illinois. Leopold v. People, 140 Ill. 552. Indiana. Hawkins v. State, 126 Ind. 294. New Jersey. - Wandling v Thompson, 41 N. J. L. 142. New York. New York v. New York, etc., North Dakota. - State v. Markuson, (N. - Earle v. Stokes, 5 S. Car. - Rutherford v. Metcalf, 5 Hayw. Wisconsin. In re Perry, 30 Wis. 268. The Rule in Canada is that the contemnor may always defend himself by objections to the regularity of the process. Matter of Allen, 31 U. C. Q. B. 458. or order of court, granted without jurisdiction, does not render the person so refusing, liable for contempt. Courts cannot usurp authority and then punish for a disobedience of such usurpation.1 - 1. Jurisdictional Defects United States. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200; In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443; Ex p. Rowland, 104 U. S. 604. California. - Ex p. Hollis, 59 Cal. 406; Ex p. Jaynes, 70 Cal. 638; Ex p. Brown, 97 Cal. 83; Brown v. Moore, 61 Cal. 432; People v. O'Neil, 47 Cal. 109; Foster v. Superior Ct., 115 Cal. 279. Illinois. Walton v. Develing, 61 Ill. 201; Weigley v. People, 51 Ill. App. 51; Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill. 261; Andrews v. Knox County, 70 Ill. 65; Darst v. People, 62 Ill. 306; Lester 2. People, 150 Ill. 408, 41 Am. St. Rep. 375. Kansas. State v. Smithers, 14 Kan. 629. citing 3 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (1st ed.) 395. Louisiana. 605. State v. Voorhies, 37 La. Ann. Michigan. - Brewer v. Kidd, 23 Mich. 440; People v. Simonson, 10 Mich. 335. Mississippi. - Ex p. Adams, 25 Miss. 883, 59 Am. Dec. 234. Missouri. - Ex p. Crenshaw, 80 Mo. 447; St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wear, 135 Mo. 230. Nevada. - Ex p. Gardner, 22 Nev. 280. New Jersey. - Dodd v. Una, 40 N. J. Eq. 672; Forrest v. Price, 52 N. J. Eq. 16. New York. - People v. Edson, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 53; Dawley v. Brown, 43 How. Pr. (N. Y. Supreme Ct.) 17; Bacon v. Wilber, I Cow. (N. Y.) 117; Quimbo Appo v. People, 20 N. Y. 531; People v. Donovan, 135 N. Y. 79, citing 3 AM. AND ENG. ENCYC. OF LAW (1st ed.) 788. North Carolina. - Bear v. Cohen, 65 N. Car. 511. 704. State v. Blair, 39 W. Va. Wisconsin. Matter of Blair, 4 Wis. 522; In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411. The Disregard of a Supersedeas improvidently issued, and annulled and vacated for want of jurisdiction, will not be punished as a contempt. State v. Blair, 39 W. Va. 704. The Circuit Court of the United States has no jurisdiction to entertain a bill to restrain the mayor of a city from removing an officer upon charges filed against him for malfeasance in office; and an injunction issued upon such bill, and an order committing the defendant for contempt in disregarding the injunction, are absolutely void, and he is entitled to be discharged on habeas corpus. In re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 201. Where Proceedings Are Ex Parte. - Where a complainant, claiming to be in actual possession of certain premises, obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents from trespassing, and the writ also enjoined them from interfering with the possession, and where it appeared that respondents were actually in possession at the time the injunction was issued, it was held that they could not be punished for contempt in maintaining that possession by force. People v. Simonson, 10 Mich. 335. Where Judge Out of His District. —The judge of one district when in another district has no jurisdiction while the judge of the latter district is holding his own court, to make an order in relation to a matter pending in the court of the latter district; and a party cannot be punished for a contempt in violating an order which the court had no jurisdiction to make. People v. O'Neil, 47 Cal. 109. Enjoining an Election for Which the Law Provides. Where the law authorized an election to be called in a township to determine whether a majority were in favor of subscribing to the stock of a railroad company, and the election was called in pursuance of the requirements of the law, a court of equity had no jurisdiction to restrain the officers from holding, or the people from voting, at such election. An injunction issued in such case is void, and the disobedience of it is no contempt. Walton v. Develing, 61 Ill. 201, followed in Darst v. People, 62 Ill. 306. Where a Court Had No Jurisdiction Over a Cause Ratione Materiæ it exceeds the bounds of its authority when it issues therein an injunction; and a disobedience of such injunction is not a contempt. State v. Voorhies, 37 La. Ann. 605. Order of Judge that Cause Pending in One District Be Transferred to His. - The district court of one county lacks power to make an order that an action pending in the court of another county be transferred to the first-named court. Such order is without jurisdiction, and disobedience to it cannot be punished as a contempt. Ex p. Gardner, 22 Nev. 280. Where Judge Without Jurisdiction to Render Money Decree. On the petition of a surety of an administrator to be relieved from his liability as surety, the judge of probate having cited the administrator before him, took an account of his administration, and, finding a balance due by him to the estate, made an order that such balance be paid into court, and that the letters of administration be revoked. On failing to comply with the order to pay the money he was arrested and imprisoned for contempt. It was held that the judge was without jurisdiction to render the decree, and that the imprisonment for contempt was unlawful. Gilliam v. McJunkin, 2 S. Car. 442. Suit Against State. Where a court of the United States undertakes by its process of contempt to punish a man for refusing to comply with an order which that court had no authority to make (the original order being void for want of jurisdiction), the order punishing for contempt is equally void. The constitutional exemption, guaranteed by the Eleventh Amendment, covers not only suits brought against a state by name, but those against its officers, where the state, though not named, is the real party against which the relief was asked. In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443. See the title STATES. Where No Jurisdiction to Award Mandamus. 7. Strangers to the Cause Agents. - Ordinarily a person cannot be punished as for a contempt for the violation of an order, or the disobedience of an injunction, issued in a cause to which he is a stranger.1 Contempt of Agent. Where the order is disobeyed by an agent, with knowledge of its service on his principal, he may be punished for contempt.2 But an agent cannot be punished for contempt for the violation of an order as to which his principal is a stranger.3 8. Right to Personal Notice and Hearing. When it is claimed that an injunctional or other order, made during the progress of a cause in a court of chancery, has been violated or not complied with, the contemnor is entitled to personal notice of the institution of proceedings to punish him for contempt, that he may appear and controvert or demur to the affidavits or information on which the proceeding may be based. The service of a motion to commit for the disobedience of an injunction on the solicitor of record of the contemnor is held in England to be insufficient.5 9. Nature of Punishment. The wilful violation of an injunction is ordinarily a criminal contempt, and is punishable primarily as such in the interest of public justice and for the purpose of vindicating the power and maintaining The county commissioners of a county in Alabama, who were required by statute to levy and assess such a special tax upon real and personal property as would be sufficient to meet the interest falling due upon certain bonds of the county, discharged their duty when a sufficient levy had been made, and the governor of the state was notified of the failure of the collector to give bond for the collection of any taxes other than those levied for general purposes; and a writ of mandamus awarded to cause the tax to be collected,' such writ being in excess of the jurisdiction of the court, was void; and the commissioners, being adjudged to be in contempt of that command, and imprisoned therefor by order of the court, were discharged on a writ of habeas corpus. Exp. Rowland, 104 U. S. 604. Decree Requiring Execution of Deed. - In Berry v. Innes, 35 Mich. 189, it was held that the defendant was not in contempt for disobedience of a decree requiring him to execute, acknowledge, and deliver to the complainant a deed with special covenant of warranty, until a deed had been presented to him for execution and he had refused. See also Berry v. Innes, 46 Mich. 518. Disobedience of Void Subpoena Duces Tecum. A court has no jurisdiction to make an order requiring an employee of a telegraph company to search for and produce all messages from and to a large number of persons therein named, between specified dates; hence the disobedience of such an order by him is no contempt, and where there has been a commitment for such supposed contempt he will be discharged on habeas corpus. Ex p. Jaynes, 70 Cal. 638. See the title PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. 1. Strangers. Sickels v. Borden, 4 Blatchf. (U. S.) 14: McKinney v. Frankfort, etc., R. Co., 140 Ind. 95: St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wear, 135 Mo. 230; Bowery Sav. Bank v. Richards, 3 Hun (N. Y.) 366; Shelby v. Burtis, 18 Tex. 644. Assignee. Where an injunction was obtained against the enforcement of a deed of trust, given to secure a promissory note, the court has no jurisdiction to punish for contempt an assignee of the note who obtained it before the injunction was granted and who was not a party to the suit. Shelby v. Burtis, 18 Tex. 644. A Petition for the Appointment of a Receiver for a corporation showed that the corporate property had been transferred to an alleged new company, but such new company was not a party; and where, the receiver having been appointed, the officers having control of the property refused to surrender it, and the court granted a writ directing the sheriff to place the receiver in possession and to arrest for contempt the persons refusing to surrender possession, it was held that, the new corporation and its officers not being parties, the court had no jurisdiction to grant the writ, and that a refusal to obey such order did not render the person refusing liable for contempt. St. Louis, etc., R. Co. v. Wear, 135 Mo. 230. 2. Agents. Aldinger v. Pugh, 57 Hun (N. Y.) 181, 19 Civ. Pro. Rep. (N. Y.) 91, affirmed 132 N. Y. 407. And see Cameron v. Kapinos, 89 Iowa 561. 3. An attorney is not guilty of contempt because, after the entry of an order enjoining the creditors of a corporation from prosecuting actions against it, he advised and brought a suit in another court for nonresident creditors who were not bound by the injunction. State v. Nathans, (S. Car. 1897) 27 S. E. Rep. 52. 4. Angerstein v. Hunt, 6 Ves. Jr. 488; Taylor v. Roe, 68 L. T. 213; Flommerfelt v. Zellers, 7 N. J. L. 31. But see O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 69 Ill. 552. See, for a Full Treatment of this phase of the subject, the title CONTEMPT, 4 ENCYC. OF PL. AND PR. 764. " 5. In Ellerton 7. Thirsk, I Jac. & W. 376, the lord chancellor said: I think he must be personally served. I should not like to make an order for committing a party, though counsel should appear for him, if I knew that he had not been served. Another notice is therefore necessary." the dignity of the court. When punished as a civil contempt it is treated not as an offense against the dignity of the court, but as an offense against the party in whose behalf the writ issued, and where a fine is imposed it is solely for his indemnity. There are some cases where the violation of an injunction may properly be punished as both a civil and a criminal contempt. The nature of the proceedings, however, being entirely different in each case, it would seem that the contemnor could not well be punished for both in the same proceeding.2 The publi XII. CONTEMPT BY NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS-1. In General. cation of inaccurate accounts of pending causes, or of matter which has a tendency to prejudice the public as to their merits, or of matter tending to bring the court into disrepute, and thus to interfere with the due administration of justice, has always been regarded as contempt of court.3 2. Attack on Integrity of the Court. The publication of libelous and scandalous matter in a newspaper, which reflects upon the conduct of a court of record in reference to a pending suit, tending in some manner to impede, interrupt, or embarrass the proceedings of the court in reference thereto, or to 1. See People v. McKane, 78 Hun (N. Y.) 157. It would be impossible to lay down a rule of general application as to punishments for contempts for violations of injunctions. The procedure and punishment in such cases are frequently regulated by statute, and where no statute exists, the practice differs in different jurisdictions. See the title CONTEMPT, 4 ENCYC. OF PL. AND PR. 764. 2. In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411; Haines v. Haines, 35 Mich. 138; Matter of Watson, 3 Lans. (N. Y.) 408. Very few instances can be found where a court undertakes to punish the violation of an injunction as both a civil and a criminal contempt; when done, separate proceedings would seem to be necessary. In the one case the fine goes to the aggrieved party as an indemnity, and in the other to the state. See the title CONTEMPT, 4 ENCYC. OF PL. and PR. 764. In the case of Doubleday v. Sherman, 8 Blatchf. (U. S.) 45, a defendant who was found guilty of wilfully violating an injunction was fined a sufficient amount to cover the solicitor's fees expended by the plaintiff in prosecuting the contempt, to be turned over to the latter as indemnity, and committed until the payment of costs and the entire fine including the amount taxed as the plaintiff's indemnity. 3. Newspaper Publications - General Rule England. - In re Printer of St. James's Evening Post, 2 Atk. 469; Daw v. Eley, L. R. 7 Eq. 49; Littler v. Thomson, 2 Beav. 129; Tichborne v. Mostyn, L. R. 7 Eq. 55, note 1; In re Cheltenham, etc., Railway Carriage, etc., Co., L. R. 8 Eq. 580. Canada, 42, 47. Reg. v. Wilkinson, 41 U. C. Q. B. United States. - Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wall. (C. C.) 77; U. S. v. Duane, Wall. (C. C.) West Virginia. State v. Frew, 24 W. Va. 416, 49 Am. Rep. 257. accounts * * * Contempts may arise" by speaking or writing contemptuously of the court or judges acting in their judicial capacity, by printing false of causes then depending in judgment, and by anything, in short, that demonstrates a gross want of that regard and respect which, when once courts of justice are deprived of, their authority, so necessary for the good order of the kingdom, is entirely lost among the people." 4 Bl. Com. 285. In the case of In re Printer of St. James's Evening Post, 2 Atk. 469, the court thus defined the several classes of contempts in this regard: There are three different sorts of contempt. One kind of contempt is, scandalizing the court itself. There may be likewise a contempt of this court, in abusing parties who are concerned in causes here. There may be also a contempt of this court, in preju. dicing mankind against persons, before the cause is heard." influence its decision therein, may be punished by the court as a contempt.1 Necessary that Finding Show Intent. - It has been held, in a state where all indirect contempts are reviewable on appeal, that the judgment finding a publisher of a newspaper guilty of contempt must show that the publication was made with the intent of bringing the court into contempt, and the language used must be found and set out." -4 3. Tending to Prejudice a Cause. A court has the inherent power, in the absence of a limitation placed upon it by the power which created it, to punish as a contempt the publication of any article, with reference to a pending cause, which is calculated to prejudice the jury as to its merits or to obstruct the court in the discharge of its duties.3 Where Publication Does Not Prejudice the Cause. Where, however, the publication complained of can have no tendency to prejudice the cause, the publisher of a newspaper is not guilty of contempt in publishing the testimony, even * * Ex p. Reflections on Judicial Conduct. Publications which charge that persons stigmatized as "corruptionists and political thugs" have such influence with the Supreme Court as to prevent the rendering of a decision by it in a cause wherein they had been convicted of a crime and appealed to that court, and state that "there must be influence of some kind at work somewhere: there can be no earthly excuse for the Supreme Court in any manner shielding them from the punishment they so richly deserve; *it would be interesting to know what mysterious but evidently powerful influence has retarded the machinery of justice so strikingly in this case," constitute contempt of court. People v. Stapleton, 18 Colo. 568. * * The publication of an article in a newspaper charging a judge with" deliberate lying about the law, deliberate intentional falsification in his official capacity, and deliberate intentional denial of justice," in the trial of a pending case, is a contempt of court. Ex p. Barry, 85 Cal. 603, 20 Am. St. Rep. 248. The publication of an article containing imputations against the character of a judge, and imputing to him conduct in respect to the case then being tried, which, if true, would render him unfit to try the case, with ground to believe that the paper when published will be circulated in the court room during the trial and there read, is a contempt of court. Myers v. State, 46 Ohio St. 473. The publication of an article in a newspaper which reflects upon the conduct of the court in reference to a pending suit, and tends either to influence its decision or to impede the proceedings in reference thereto, is properly punished by the court as a contempt. State v. Kaiser, 20 Oregon 50. 2. In re Deaton, 105 N. Car. 59. - 3. Tending to Prejudice a Cause — England. Littler v. Thomson, 2 Beav. 129; Daw v. Eley, L. R. 7 Eq. 49; In re Cheltenham, etc., Railway Carriage, etc., Co., L. R. 8 Eq. 580; In re Printer of St. James's Evening Post, 2 Atk. 469. Canada. Bothwell's Election Case, 40 Ont. Rep. 224: Reg. v. Wilkinson, 41 U. C. Q. B. 47. California. Matter of Shortridge, 99 Cal. 527, 37 Am. St. Rep. 78. New Hampshire. Tenney's Case, 23 N. H. 162; Matter of Sturoc, 48 N. H. 428, 97 Am. Dec. 630. New York. People v. Freer, 1 Cai. (N. Y.) 518. Pennsylvania. - Respublica v. Oswald, I Dall. (Pa.) 319, I Am. Dec. 246; Bayard v. Passmore, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 438. The publication of an article in a newspaper, reflecting in severe and opprobrious terms on the character of a prosecution then pending in court, the publication being made at a time and under circumstances which would bring it to the notice of the jurors, is a contempt of court and punishable as such by summary process. Matter of Sturoc, 48 N. H. 428, 97 Am. Dec. 626. |