Blackwelder v. Crooks
| Decision Date | 17 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3431-56,4006-55. |
| Citation | 151 F. Supp. 26 |
| Parties | Leroy J. BLACKWELDER, Plaintiff, v. James A. CROOKS, Defendant. In re Frederick A. STERLING. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
There are before the Court two motions to adjudicate Leroy J. Blackwelder and Patrick David Sterling in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order made by this Court in these two cases which were consolidated for trial. The contempt charge involves a civil contempt.
This litigation involves certain assets of the estate of Frederick A. Sterling for whom a conservator was appointed due to the fact that the infirmities of advanced age have rendered it difficult for him to administer his own property. In the course of the trial the undisputed fact appeared that the respondent Patrick David Sterling, a son of Frederick A. Sterling, had obtained a power of attorney from his father to deal with his father's property. The Court found that the father was not competent to execute such a power of attorney and rendered judgment declaring it null and void.
Prior to the trial, however, acting upon the basis of the power of attorney, Patrick D. Sterling transferred certain securities belonging to his father to Leroy J. Blackwelder, and the two together sold these securities for a sum in excess of $57,000. The check for that amount was cashed by Leroy J. Blackwelder over the counter at the bank on which it was drawn. Blackwelder testified that he took the money, put it in a box, carried it to Florida, and buried the box in the ground in the region of Florida known as the Everglades, and that the box with the money in it is still there.
The Court then directed Blackwelder and Patrick David Sterling to pay the money over to the conservator, or in the alternative, deposit it in the Registry of the Court, not later than January 22, 1957. The purpose of the Court in according to the respondents the alternative of depositing the money into the Registry of the Court, was to leave the funds intact pending the disposition of any appeal that might be taken, if one were taken, but at the same time protecting the estate from loss.
This order has not been complied with. The money has not been paid over to the conservator and has not been deposited into the Registry of the Court. Having violated the order of the Court the respondents are obviously guilty of contempt.
It is urged in their behalf that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to punish for contempt in view of the fact that an appeal from the order of the Court has been taken and is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals. No supersedeas, however, has been obtained, and therefore the order is in effect and must be obeyed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shanghai Inv. Co., Inc. v. Alteka Co., Ltd., No. 20709.
...be complied with in the event of affirmance. MDG Supply, 51 Haw. at 381, 463 P.2d at 529 (emphasis added) (quoting Blackwelder v. Crooks, 151 F.Supp. 26, 28 (D.C.1957)). The purpose of posting a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo pending appeal. Poplar Grove Planting and Refinin......
-
Brown v. Braddick
...v. MacDonald, 544 F.2d 396, 406 (CA9, 1976), Cert. denied, 430 U.S. 931, 97 S.Ct. 1550, 51 L.Ed.2d 774 (1977); Blackwelder v. Crooks, 151 F.Supp. 26 (D.D.C.1957), Rev'd on other grounds, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 290, 252 F.2d 854 (1958). Although U. S. v. Roundtree, 420 F.2d 845, 853 (CA5, 1969), s......
-
American President Lines, Inc., In re
...See Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). See also Thorpe v. Thorpe, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 300 n. 1, 364 F.2d 692, 693 n. 1 (1966); Blackwelder v. Crooks, 151 F.Supp. 26, 28 (D.D.C.1957), rev'd on other grounds, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 290, 291, 252 F.2d 854, 855 (1958); 7 J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice p 62.06......
-
Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n
...Since no bond was posted, the grant or denial of the stays was a matter strictly within the judge's discretion."); Blackwelder v. Crooks, 151 F.Supp. 26, 28 (D.D.C.1957) ("The necessary implication (of Rule 62(d)) is that without giving supersedeas bond or unless otherwise ordered by the Co......