Baldwin v. Miles

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtTORRANCE, J.
Citation58 Conn. 496,20 A. 618
Decision Date31 March 1890
PartiesBALDWIN et al. v. MILES et al.
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

20 A. 619

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 practice notes
  • Issler v. Issler, No. 16463
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • August 25, 1998
    ...that the facts in this case are sufficiently similar to Blaydes v. Blaydes, 187 Conn. 464, 467, 446 A.2d 825 (1982), and Baldwin v. Miles, 58 Conn. 496, 501-502, 20 A. 618 (1890). We The defendant fails to recognize facts that distinguish the present case from Baldwin and Blaydes. In Baldwi......
  • State v. Elmer G., (AC 37596).
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • September 12, 2017
    ...not specifying, de novo review of whether failure to follow supplemental orders could result in finding of contempt); Baldwin v. Miles , 58 Conn. 496, 501–502, 20 A. 618 (1890) (conducting, but not specifying, de novo review of whether injunction's language was too vague and indefinite so a......
  • Carothers v. Capozziello, Nos. 13745
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 22, 1990
    ...cannot do thereunder, seeing that the consequences of a breach may subject him [215 Conn. 110] to loss of property...." Baldwin v. Miles, 58 Conn. 496, 502, 20 A. 618 (1890); Palverari v. Finta, 129 Conn. 38, 40, 26 A.2d 229 (1942); Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365, 396, 32 A. 939 (1895); Ro......
  • Cologne v. Westfarms Associates
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 6, 1985
    ...Haven, 82 Conn. 153, 155-56, 72 A. 1012 (1909); Church v. Pearne, 75 Conn. 350, 355, 53 [197 Conn. 152] A. 955 (1903); Baldwin v. Miles, 58 Conn. 496, 498, 20 A. 618 (1890); Welch v. Barber, 52 Conn. 147, 156-58 (1884); Huntington v. McMahon, 48 Conn. 174, 196 (1880). Therefore, if the cond......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
30 cases
  • Issler v. Issler, No. 16463
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • August 25, 1998
    ...that the facts in this case are sufficiently similar to Blaydes v. Blaydes, 187 Conn. 464, 467, 446 A.2d 825 (1982), and Baldwin v. Miles, 58 Conn. 496, 501-502, 20 A. 618 (1890). We The defendant fails to recognize facts that distinguish the present case from Baldwin and Blaydes. In Baldwi......
  • State v. Elmer G., (AC 37596).
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • September 12, 2017
    ...not specifying, de novo review of whether failure to follow supplemental orders could result in finding of contempt); Baldwin v. Miles , 58 Conn. 496, 501–502, 20 A. 618 (1890) (conducting, but not specifying, de novo review of whether injunction's language was too vague and indefinite so a......
  • Carothers v. Capozziello, Nos. 13745
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • May 22, 1990
    ...cannot do thereunder, seeing that the consequences of a breach may subject him [215 Conn. 110] to loss of property...." Baldwin v. Miles, 58 Conn. 496, 502, 20 A. 618 (1890); Palverari v. Finta, 129 Conn. 38, 40, 26 A.2d 229 (1942); Robinson v. Clapp, 65 Conn. 365, 396, 32 A. 939 (1895); Ro......
  • Cologne v. Westfarms Associates
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • August 6, 1985
    ...Haven, 82 Conn. 153, 155-56, 72 A. 1012 (1909); Church v. Pearne, 75 Conn. 350, 355, 53 [197 Conn. 152] A. 955 (1903); Baldwin v. Miles, 58 Conn. 496, 498, 20 A. 618 (1890); Welch v. Barber, 52 Conn. 147, 156-58 (1884); Huntington v. McMahon, 48 Conn. 174, 196 (1880). Therefore, if the cond......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT