Clark v. Burke

• Citation: 45 N.E. 235,163 Ill. 334
• Parties: CLARK v. BURKE et al.
• Decision Date: 09 November 1896
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

163 Ill. 334

45 N.E. 235

CLARK

v.BURKE et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 9, 1896.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Petition by A. J. Burke and others in the matter of the Southern Hotel Company, insolvent, requesting that their allowed claims be paid. An order was granted as prayed. Clark failed to obey the order, and was proceeded against as for contempt. From an order committing him to the county jail, Clark appealed to the appellate court, and from its judgment of affirmance (62 Ill. App. 252) he appeals. Affirmed.

Wilbur & Horner, for appellants.

Henry A. Hickman, for appellees.

On the 16th day of July, 1894, the Southern Hotel Company, a corporation operating the Southern Hotel, in Chicago, filed in the county court of Cook county its voluntary assignment, naming one Davis as assignee. On the 24th of that month, Davis resigned, and appellant, Wallace G. Clark, was appointed by the court as his successor. A number of claims were filed and allowed against the estate, and on December 10, 1894, appellees filed their petition in that court, charging, among other things, the receipt by the assignee of certain sums of money and property which he had failed to administer upon and distribute, and praying for an order directing him to pay their claims. The assignee answered, denying in the main the allegations of the petitions. The court, however, found in favor of the petitioners, and ordered him to pay the claim, aggregating a sum about $1,400. The assignee, having failed to obey that order, on the 18th of June, 1895, on the motion of said claimants, was ordered by the court to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt. In response to this order he filed his sworn answer, setting forth his transactions with the estate, and alleging that he had no money in his hands, as assignee, with which to comply with the order. The court held this answer insufficient, and ordered him committed to the county jail for a period of 30 days. From that order he prosecuted an appeal to the appellate court of the First district, and this appeal he now prosecutes from a judgment of affirmance in the latter court.

WILKIN, J. (after stating the facts).

It is insisted that the county court was without jurisdiction to adjudge the assignee guilty of contempt, and impose the punishment inflicted upon him. It is well settled that courts having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and over the person of parties, may lawfully enforce obedience to its orders by proceeding against them as for contempt. In such case the proceeding is not a criminal one, as in case of punishment for conduct committed in the presence of the court, or for contempt of its process, but is a civil proceeding for the benefit of those interested in the enforcement of the judgment and orders or decrees of the court. Our statute (1 Starr & C. Ann. St. c. 72, § 14, entitled ‘Voluntary Assignments') provides, ‘Full authority and jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon county courts, and the judges thereof, to execute and carry out the provisions of this act.’ Section 7 of the same chapter (Id. p. 1305) gives that court full jurisdiction and power over the assignee in the insolvent proceeding, and...