Brown v. Brown

• Decision Date: 13 December 1933
• Docket Number: 25,411
• Citation: 187 N.E. 836,205 Ind. 664
• Parties: Brown v. Brown
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

187 N.E. 836

205 Ind. 664

Brown v. Brown

No. 25,411

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 13, 1933

1. APPEALS---Review of Evidence---Conflicting Evidence.---Where there is conflict in the evidence the judgment will not be disturbed on the sufficiency of the evidence if there is any supporting evidence. p. 665.

2. CONTEMPT---Civil Contempt---Failure to Pay Support Money in Divorce Case.---Proceeding against a defendant in a divorce case for failure to pay support money is one for civil contempt. p. 665.

3. CONTEMPT---Civil Contempt---Nature of Offense.---Civil contempt being a violation of a court order or decree in favor of the opposing party, it is not an offense so much against the dignity of the court as against the party. p 665.

4. CONTEMPT---Civil Contempt---Purpose of Imprisonment.---The imposition of a term of imprisonment or fine in a case of civil contempt is for the purpose of coercing the contempt defendant to comply with the order of the court. p. 665.

5. CONTEMPT---Civil Contempt---Failure to Pay Support Money in Divorce Case---Coercive Punishment.---Commitment for contempt of a defendant in a divorce case for refusal to pay support money should be until the order of the court is obeyed or a further order made; not for a definite term. p. 667.

6. CONTEMPT---Civil Contempt---Failure to Pay Support Money in Divorce Case---Discharge.---Where a defendant in a divorce case is imprisoned for failure to pay support money, he is entitled to a discharge upon payment of the amount due, or upon a showing that he has not the actual ability to pay. p 668.

From Howard Circuit Court; J. Marshall, Judge.

Action for divorce between Hazel Brown and Walter J. Brown, wherein the latter was sentenced to the Indiana State Farm for a period of 60 days for contempt of court in failing to comply with court order to pay support money, and he appealed.

Judgment ordered modified in accordance with opinion.

Ira Chase Koehne, for appellant.

Homer R. Miller, for appellee.

OPINION

Hughes, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Howard Circuit Court whereby the appellant was sentenced for contempt of court to the Indiana State Farm for a period of 60 days. The alleged contempt is the failure to comply with a court order growing out of a divorce proceeding between appellant and appellee wherein the appellant was ordered to pay to the clerk of the court, a certain sum per week for the support of a child of appellant and appellee whose care and custody was given to appellee.

The appellant has set out ten assignments of error. The only one having any merit and properly assigned is the 4th which is that "the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial." Fourteen reasons for a new trial are assigned and the only ones with any merit are the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, which state that the finding and decision of the court is contrary to law and that the finding and decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

We have carefully reviewed the evidence in this case and we can not say that it does not support the finding of the lower court. There is some conflict in the evidence and the judgment will not be disturbed on the sufficiency of the evidence.

This proceeding is one for civil contempt against appellant for failure to pay support money. Civil contempt has been defined to be a violation of an order, or decree of a court made for the benefit of the opposing party. It is not an offense so much against the dignity of the court as against the party. Denny v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 682, 182 N.E. 313.

The imposition of a term of imprisonment or fine in a case of civil contempt is for the purpose of coercing the contempt defendant to comply with the order of the court. The distinction between the purposes of coercive measures in civil contempt and punitive measures in criminal contempt is pointed out in the case of Gompers v. Bucks Stove and Range Co. (1910), 221 U.S. 418, 34 L.R.A. (N S.) 874, 55 L.Ed. 797, 31 S.Ct. 492. In this case the court said: "Contempts are neither wholly civil nor altogether criminal. And 'it may not always be easy to classify a particular act as belonging to either one of these two classes. It may partake of the characteristics of both. . . .' It is not the fact of punishment, but rather its character and purpose, that often serve to distinguish between the two classes of cases. If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial and for the benefits of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court. It is true that punishment by imprisonment may be remedial as well as punitive, and many civil contempt proceedings have resulted not only in the imposition of a fine, payable to the complainant, but also in committing the defendant to prison. But imprisonment for civil contempt is ordered where the defendant has refused to do an affirmative act required by the provisions of an order which, either in form or substance, was mandatory in its...