Baldwin v. Miles

• Citation: 58 Conn. 496,20 A. 618
• Parties: BALDWIN et al. v. MILES et al.
• Decision Date: 31 March 1890
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

20 A. 618

58 Conn. 496

BALDWIN et al.

v. MILES et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 31, 1890.

Appeal from superior court, New Haven county; F. B. HALL, Judge.

D. Davenport and S. Judson, Jr., for appellants. W. T. Bennett and T. E. Doolittle, for appellees.

TORRANCE, J. On the 14th of May, 1886, an injunction against the continuance of a nuisance was issued by the superior court against the present defendants, at the instance of the plaintiffs and others, and the case at bar is a proceeding in the form of a complaint alleging a violation of the injunction and asking that the defendants be attached and committed to jail as for a contempt in such violation. In obedience to the order to show cause issued in the case the defendants severally answered denying the breach, and after a hearing had the court below found them each guilty of contempt, and ordered them to pay a fine of $100 each, and the costs of the proceeding, and to stand committed until the judgment should be complied with. The defendants have appealed to this court for divers claimed errors in the rulings of the trial court upon questions of evidence, and also for holding upon the facts found that the defendants had violated the injunction.

Before considering the questions presented by the defendants' appeal, it will be well to dispose of the claim made by the plaintiffs on the argument before this court, to the effect that the judgment of the superior court in a case of contempt cannot be reviewed by this court, unless there is in the case as presented here a question as to the jurisdiction of the superior court. There are unquestionably scattered through the text-books and reports many statements and dicta which apparently or in fact support such a claim; but we think it will be found on a close examination that the authoritative decisions of courts of last resort sustaining such a claim, as broadly as it is here made, are very few. And whatever view's may prevail elsewhere, we think the law of our own state, at least so far as cases like the one at bar for a civil contempt are concerned, must be regarded as settled adversely to the plaintiffs' claim. In the case of Manufacturing Co. v. Rogers, 88 Conn. 121, upon a reservation, and in Hull v. Harris, 45 Conn. 514, upon a motion in error, both of them cases of contempt for violating an injunction, and in the more recent case of Welch v. Barber, 52 Conn. 147, a case of contempt brought here by appeal, this court considered and decided questions other than questions of jurisdiction. In Catlin v. Baldwin, 47 Conn. 173, which was a case of contempt for violating an injunction, this court said: "Our system of administrative justice as a rule delays the enforcement of judgments of courts of original jurisdiction until they have been affirmed by this court, if the parties to be affected exercise their right to bring their cause here." There may be some exceptions to this rule, as is pointed out in that case, but the case at bar does not come within the exceptions. On principle also we think such a view of the law is the correct view. The case at bar is a case of civil contempt as defined in Welch v. Barber, above cited. In such cases, as the offense is not committed in the presence of the court, the judge can have no knowledge of the facts which constitute the offense, except as they are communicated to him by others. As is said in that case: "He could not of his own motion and upon facts within his own knowledge render judgment against the delinquent. As the facts must be established by proof a trial is necessary." If a trial be necessary it follows that it must be conducted according to the law of the land and in such a manner as to deprive none of the litigants of their legal rights in the trial of their cause. If by the action of the trial court in the conduct of such trial a party is deprived of any of his legal rights in the presentation of his cause or of his defense, we know of no good reason why, if he desires it, the errors of law arising on such trial which have resulted to his harm ought not to be reviewed by this court on appeal or other appropriate proceedings in error.

We come now to the reasons of appeal filed in the case, and inasmuch as the view we take of the sixth reason of appeal disposes of the case, we pass the other reasons without further consideration. The sixth reason of appeal is to the effect that the court below erred in its construction of the language and effect of the judgment or order of injunction. The defendants contend that the order regulated only the business of making phosphate manures at their establishment, and not the business of extracting fish oil and making fish pumice, and that the court below ruled against this claim, and in so doing erred. To determine whether the defendants are right in this claim we must look at the language of the injunction, both of the order itself and of the finding of facts on which it was based, and also at the finding and judgment of the court below. The finding on which the injunction is based, and which forms a part of the injunction, is to the following effect: That the defendants from August 24, 1885, to the date of...