Brown v. Brown

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
Writing for the CourtHAZELRIGG, J.
Citation96 Ky. 505,29 S.W. 318
PartiesBROWN et al. v. BROWN et al.
Decision Date30 January 1895

29 S.W. 318

96 Ky. 505

BROWN et al.
v.
BROWN et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 30, 1895


Appeal from circuit court, Caldwell county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by W. K. Brown and others against L. C. Brown and others. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs, and an order was made that defendants pay the amount thereof to the master commissioner. Failing to do so, an attachment for contempt was granted against each defendant, and from an order discharging the attachments plaintiffs appeal. Appeal dismissed.

Wm. Marble and Blue & Blue, for appellants.

F. W. Darby, for appellees.

HAZELRIGG, J.

After a protracted litigation the appellant succeeded in obtaining a judgment in the court below against the appellees for some $4,000, which was ordered by the chancellor to be paid to his master commissioner on or before a date named in the order. Failing to comply with the order, attachments for contempt were granted, and written responses filed by each recusant, showing that the sole reason why the money had not been paid was because of financial [29 S.W. 319.] inability so to do. Upon proof heard in open court, the learned judge below was of opinion that the delinquents were in fact unable to comply with the order, and discharged the attachments against their persons. From this order of discharge, this appeal is prosecuted.

The exercise of the power to punish for contempt is not generally subject to revision, but judgments and sentences for civil contempt especially have been the subject of review by this court, to the extent at least of seeing that the sum required to be paid is in fact due, and the conditions on which the contemner should be discharged. Our attention has not been called, however, to any case in this or any other court in which the finding below to the effect that there is no contempt has been reviewed or reversed. From the very nature of the case, the order is not final, and, moreover, does not affect the property rights of the appellants. We may say, however, that the order of discharge seems to have been entirely proper under the facts disclosed by this record, and could not in any event be disturbed. The appeal is dismissed for the reason indicated.

GRACE, J., not sitting.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...complaining party. (Rasch v. Shepard, 63 N.W. 969; Montgomery v. Booming Co., 62 id., 561; Schab v. Coots, 44 Mich. 463; Brown v. Brown, 29 S.W. 318; Craig v. McCallogh, 20 W.Va. 148.) As the alleged contempt is criminal in nature, the code of civil procedure does not apply. (11 Nev. 187; 1......
  • Roper v. Roper
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • March 8, 1932
    ...him at the instance of the party for whose benefit or advantage the decree has been rendered is reviewable by this court. Brown v. Brown, 96 Ky. 505, 29 S.W. 318, 16 Ky. Law Rep. 610; Sebastian v. Rose, Punishment of the husband or father for contempt on this account is a remedial process, ......
  • Adams v. Gardner
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • June 8, 1917
    ...Bickley v. Commonwealth, 2 J. J. Marsh. 574; Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Metc. 619; French v. Commonwealth, supra; Brown v. Brown, 96 Ky. 505, 29 S.W. 318, 16 Ky. Law Rep. 610; Edge v. Commonwealth, 139 Ky. 252, 129 S.W. 591. This being a case of criminal contempt, we have the power to revise......
  • Gibson v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • October 12, 1937
    ...we are met by the contention that the orders discharging the rules are not appealable. There is language to this effect, Brown v. Brown, 96 Ky. 505, 29 S.W. 318, 16 Ky. Law Rep. 610, but a careful review of the question leads inevitably to the conclusion that the language was inadvertently ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...complaining party. (Rasch v. Shepard, 63 N.W. 969; Montgomery v. Booming Co., 62 id., 561; Schab v. Coots, 44 Mich. 463; Brown v. Brown, 29 S.W. 318; Craig v. McCallogh, 20 W.Va. 148.) As the alleged contempt is criminal in nature, the code of civil procedure does not apply. (11 Nev. 187; 1......
  • Roper v. Roper
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • March 8, 1932
    ...him at the instance of the party for whose benefit or advantage the decree has been rendered is reviewable by this court. Brown v. Brown, 96 Ky. 505, 29 S.W. 318, 16 Ky. Law Rep. 610; Sebastian v. Rose, Punishment of the husband or father for contempt on this account is a remedial process, ......
  • Adams v. Gardner
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Kentucky
    • June 8, 1917
    ...Bickley v. Commonwealth, 2 J. J. Marsh. 574; Turner v. Commonwealth, 2 Metc. 619; French v. Commonwealth, supra; Brown v. Brown, 96 Ky. 505, 29 S.W. 318, 16 Ky. Law Rep. 610; Edge v. Commonwealth, 139 Ky. 252, 129 S.W. 591. This being a case of criminal contempt, we have the power to revise......
  • Gibson v. Rogers
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • October 12, 1937
    ...we are met by the contention that the orders discharging the rules are not appealable. There is language to this effect, Brown v. Brown, 96 Ky. 505, 29 S.W. 318, 16 Ky. Law Rep. 610, but a careful review of the question leads inevitably to the conclusion that the language was inadvertently ......
  • 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