Campbell v. Motion Picture Mach. Operators
| Decision Date | 27 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | No. 22199.,22199. |
| Citation | 186 N.W. 787,151 Minn. 238 |
| Parties | CAMPBELL v. MOTION PICTURE MACH. OPERATORS et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; W. W. Bardwell, Judge.
Action by John J. Campbell against the Motion Picture Machine Operators and others. From a judgment that the defendants Dan W. Stevens and others were guilty of contempt in disobeying an injunction, they appeal. Judgment reversed in so far as it requires defendants to pay a fine of $125 for the benefit of plaintiff, and affirmed in so far as it requires defendants to pay an attorney's fee of $100 and provides for enforcement of such requirement.
An appeal from a conviction for contempt brings the proceeding before this court only in so far as it involves a civil contempt, as a conviction for criminal contempt is not reviewable by appeal.
In a proceeding in contempt, the court may award indemnity to a party for the loss and injury resulting to him from the contempt; but such award must be based on proof of the damage actually suffered and cannot be sustained in the absence of such proof.
The court may allow an attorney's fee as a part of the expense of the proceeding, and may fix the amount allowed for services performed in the presence of the court without other evidence of the value thereof.
Coercing compliance with the judgment of the court by imprisonment does not infringe the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt. Geo. B. Leonard and T. E. Latimer, both of Minneapolis, for appellants.
Nathan H. Chase, of Minneapolis, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of Hennepin county adjudging defendants Stevens, Sinton, Thompson and Cramer guilty of contempt in willfully disobeying an injunction issued by that court.
[1] Proceedings against persons charged with contempt of court are of two classes-those prosecuted to maintain and vindicate the authority of the court; and those prosecuted to make effective the remedy given to a private party. Proceedings of the first class are purely penal in their nature and their purpose is to enforce obedience to lawful authority in the interest of the public. Those of the second class are civil in their nature and their prupose is to secure to a private party the rights to which he is entitled. Contempts prosecuted in proceedings of the first class are commonly designated as criminal contempts, and those prosecuted in proceedings of the second class as civil contempts. Both may be, and frequently are, combined in one proceeding; but in such cases the punitive part of the proceeding must conform to the law governing criminal contempts and the remedial part of it to the law governing civil contempts. State ex rel. v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 63 N. W. 169;Red River Potato Growers' Ass'n v. Bernardy, 128 Minn. 153, 150 N. W. 383. A conviction for a criminal contempt is not appealable, but may be reviewed by certiorari; a conviction for a civil contempt is appealable.
In the present case the proceeding is brought to this court by appeal, and hence is before us only in so far as it involves a civil contempt. State ex rel. v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 63 N. W. 169;State ex rel. v. Searles, 141 Minn. 267, 170 N. W. 198.
Defendants also appealed from the judgment in the main action directing the issuance of the injunction, and the decision on that appeal, affirming the judgment and sustaining the validity of the injunction, is filed herewith. All the objections urged by defendants against the injunction are fully considered in that decision and require no further discussion herein.
[2] The findings of the court in the proceeding in contempt are lengthy. It is sufficient to say that they are to the effect that the defendants had willfully and persistently violated and disobeyed the judgment in the main action and the injunction issued thereunder for the purpose of injuring the plaintiff, and thereby had prejudiced plaintiff's rights and were defeating the remedy given him by the court. These findings are amply supported by the evidence. Upon these findings the court made an order which reads as follows:
‘Now, therefore, it is ordered and adjudged, that the said Dan W. Stevens, R. D. Cramer, Lynn Thompson and Leslie Sinton, and each thereof are in contempt of this court for willful disregard, violation and disobedience of the said judgment and decree of this court and for failing to comply with the writ of injunction heretofore issued out of the court upon and under said judgment and decree.
‘It is further adjudged that said Dan W. Stevens, R. D. Cramer, Lynn Thompson and Leslie Sinton each be fined in the sum of $125.00 for the benefit of plaintiff herein, and that said parties above named pay the costs and expenses of the conpempt proceedings, including an attorney's fee of $100.00; and that in default of the payment of said above named parties of said fines, and costs and expenses of said contempt proceedings, and said attorney's fees, or either thereof, said last above named parties, and each thereof, be imprisoned in the county jail of Hennepin county, Minnesota, until said fines, costs and expenses of said contempt proceedings and attorney's fees are paid, not exceeding the term of six months.
‘Let judgment be entered in accordance with this order, and execution issue thereon, and if said executions, or either thereof, be returned unsatisfied, in whole or in part, let a warrant or warrants of commitment issue as provided by law and in accordance with the terms of this order.’
While...
To continue reading
Request your trial