Conway v. Conway, 17844
| Decision Date | 16 July 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 17844,17844 |
| Parties | Sarah E. CONWAY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Daniel J. CONWAY, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Joseph E. Maker, Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Benjamin Klein, Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error was defendant in a divorce suit commenced by defendant in error. The action resulted in a final decree of divorce in favor of plaintiff in error on December 6, 1945. We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court. The parties had one child whose custody was awarded to the defendant. The divorce decree provided: '* * * that plaintiff pay to defendant the sum of $85.00 per month payable in equal semi-monthly installments of $42.50 each beginning December 15, 1945 * * * until the further order of Court * * *.'
On January 27, 1955 defendant filed a motion for a citation for contempt of court on the part of plaintiff, and by affidavit advised the court that plaintiff was in arrears in payments required by said decree in the sum of $6,390. She further stated in her affidavit that plaintiff '* * * is in contempt of this Honorable Court and should be fined or imprisoned to vindicate the dignity of the Court.' A contempt citation was issued, served, and hearings had thereon, resulting in dismissal of the contempt citation and a finding that the arrearage under the decree amounted to $2,480. From the evidence the court concluded that
From this ruling defendant brings the case here on writ of error.
The power to punish for contempt should be used with caution after due deliberation, and only when necessary to prevent actual, direct obstruction of, or interference with, the administration of justice. The matter of dealing with contempt is within the sound discretion of the trial court and its determination is final unless an abuse of such discretion is clearly shown. The citation pursuant to which plaintiff appeared in court recited it was issued 'to vindicate the dignity of the court'. The trial judge is always charged with the duty of protecting the dignity of the court and to enforce its valid orders. In the instant case the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lucero
...178 Colo. 118, 495 P.2d 539 (1972); or a person disobeying a court order for the payment of alimony or child support, Conway v. Conway, 134 Colo. 79, 299 P.2d 509 (1956), In re Murley, 124 Colo. 581, 239 P.2d 706 (1951), an evidentiary hearing is required under due process. Where, however, ......
-
Stovall v. Crosby, 22296
...sound discretion of the trial court and its determination is final unless an abuse of such discretion is clearly shown. Conway v. Conway, 134 Colo. 79, 299 P.2d 509; Engleman v. Engleman, 145 Colo. 299, 358 P.2d 864. A careful examination of the record in this case does not indicate any abu......
-
Arevalo v. Colorado Department of Human Services
...within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of this discretion. Conway v. Conway, 134 Colo. 79, 299 P.2d 509 (1956); People v. Mulberry, 919 P.2d 835 To find a party in contempt for violation of a lawful order of which the party is aware......
-
People v. Holmes, 97CA0848
...and only when necessary to prevent actual, direct obstruction of, or interference with, the administration of justice. Conway v. Conway, 134 Colo. 79, 299 P.2d 509 (1956). That power is not designed to protect a judge's own dignity, but rather to protect the rights of litigants and the publ......