Campbell v. Motion Picture Machine Operators of Minneapolis
| Decision Date | 27 January 1922 |
| Docket Number | 22,199 |
| Citation | 186 N.W. 787,151 Minn. 238 |
| Parties | JOHN J. CAMPBELL v. MOTION PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF MINNEAPOLIS AND OTHERS; DAN W. STEVENS AND OTHERS, APPELLANTS |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $1,100 and to restrain Motion Picture Machine Operators Union of Minneapolis, Local 219, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employes of the United States and Canada, a trade union, also Trades and Labor Assembly of Minneapolis and Hennepin county, and others, from conspiring to restrain the patronage and trade of plaintiff's Wonderland Theater by picketing or otherwise or publishing that plaintiff's theatre was unfair to organized labor and should not be patronized. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff. The return of an order to show cause why defendants should not be adjudged guilty of contempt for failure to obey the decree was heard by Bardwell, J., who made findings and ordered judgment as stated at length in the opinion. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment defendants Dan W. Stevens, Leslie Sinton, Lynn Thompson and R. D. Cramer appealed. Modified.
Contempt -- appeal from conviction -- no appeal from criminal contempt.
1. An appeal from a conviction for contempt brings the proceeding before this court only insofar as it involves a civil contempt, as a conviction for criminal contempt is not reviewable by appeal.
Damages for contempt awarded only after proof of actual damage.
2. 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.
Attorney's fee may be included in award.
3. 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.
Imprisonment for nonpayment not invalid.
4. Coercing compliance with the judgment of the court by imprisonment does not infringe the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt.
George B. Leonard and Thomas E. Latimer, for appellants.
Nathan H. Chase, 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 wilfully disobeying an injunction issued by that court.
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 purpose 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 v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 63 N.W. 169; Red River Potato Growers Assn. v. Barnardy, 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 insofar as it involves a civil contempt. State v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 63 N.W. 169; State 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.
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 wilfully 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial