Brown v. Brown

• Decision Date: 30 January 1895
• Citation: 96 Ky. 505,29 S.W. 318
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. BROWN et al.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

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 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.