O'Chander v. State
| Decision Date | 01 October 1895 |
| Citation | 64 N.W. 373,46 Neb. 10 |
| Parties | O'CHANDER v. STATE. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Proceedings in contempt are criminal in their nature, and the rules of strict construction applicable to criminal proceedings are to govern therein.
2. An appeal bond in an action for injunction, which omits a material condition prescribed by law, is insufficient, and will not operate to supersede a decree of the district court dissolving an order of injunction, and continue the order in force during the pendency of the appeal to this court.
3. The complaint or information in this case examined, and held insufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence of plaintiff in error.
Error to district court, Dakota county; Norris, Judge.
Complaint by the state against Fred O'Chander for contempt. Judgment of guilty, and defendant brings error. Reversed.
Barnes & Tyler and Taylor, Shull & Farnsworth, for plaintiff in error.
John T. Spencer, R. E. Evans, and A. S. Churchill, Atty. Gen., for the State.
It appears from the record in this case that an action of injunction was commenced against the plaintiff in error in the district court of Dakota county, and, the district judge being absent from the county, the county judge issued a temporary order; that due service of this and a summons in the action was had upon plaintiff in error, who filed an answer to the petition, to which there was a reply, and a trial of the issues joined, and a submission to the court, as a result of which, in the language of the record, “the said district court did, upon the 9th day of November, 1893, decide that said injunction ought not to have been granted, and did make a decree accordingly”; or, as stated in another portion of the record, “the plaintiff in error recovered a decree dissolving the injunction.” We are thus particular in quoting the statements of the record in reference to the event of the trial for the purpose of showing that, while it is disclosed that there was a trial of the matters in controversy, it does not very clearly appear whether a final disposition was made of the case or not, or the adjudication was confined to the dissolution of the injunction. The court, at the request of the plaintiff in the injunction suit, fixed the amount of a supersedeas bond, which was afterwards executed and filed, and a transcript and other necessary papers were filed in this court for the purpose of perfecting an appeal hereto from the decision of the trial court. At a later date it appears that there was an affidavit in the nature of an information filed in the district court in which it was stated that plaintiff in error had been guilty of violations of the injunction; also setting forth portions of the prior proceedings in respect to the injunction, including the decision, the filing of the bond, and the appeal of the case to this court; the purpose being to procure his punishment for a contempt. Plaintiff in error was brought before the court to answer to the charges made in the complaint. There was filed for him a demurrer to the complaint, which, so far as we care to notice it, was general, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hydock v. State
...a conviction for contempt of court. Hawes v. State, 46 Neb. 149, 64 N. W. 699;Wilcox v. State, 46 Neb. 402, 64 N. W. 1072;O'Chander v. State, 46 Neb. 10, 64 N. W. 373;Zimmerman v. State, 46 Neb. 13, 64 N. W. 375. It is therefore necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As to ......
- O'Chander v. State
-
Hydock v. State
...for contempt of court. See Hawes v. State, 46 Neb. 149, 64 N.W. 699; Wilcox v. State, 46 Neb. 402, 64 N.W. 1072; O'Chander v. State, 46 Neb. 10, 64 N.W. 373; Zimmerman v. State, 46 Neb. 13, 64 N.W. 375. It therefore necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As to Hydock, the e......
-
State ex rel. Morrissey v. Ramsey
...to prevent the enforcement of the decree it was given to supersede. State v. Thiele, 19 Neb. 220, 27 N. W. 109;O'Chander v. State, 46 Neb. 10, 64 N. W. 373. In view of the conclusion reached it is unnecessary to discuss the proposition whether mandamus will lie against the respondent to com......