Cramer v. Lamb, 6004.
| Citation | 48 F.2d 537 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 6004.,6004. |
| Parties | CRAMER et al. v. LAMB. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Gerald Fitzgerald, of Clarksdale, Miss., Marcellus Green and Garner W. Green, both of Jackson, Miss., and J. L. Roberson and Sam C. Cook, Jr., both of Clarksdale, Miss. (Maynard, FitzGerald & Venable, of Clarksdale, Miss., on the brief), for appellants.
W. Calvin Wells, of Jackson, Miss., and Arvid B. Tanner, of Chicago, Ill. (Wells, Jones, Wells & Lipscomb, of Jackson, Miss., on the brief), for appellee.
Before FOSTER, Circuit Judge, and GRUBB and DAWKINS, District Judges.
This cause involved a rule for contempt against William E. Lamb, because of the alleged taking from the jurisdiction of the court of certain funds and for which the ancillary bill was filed in the case of Schmitt, Receiver, v. Lamb (No. 6072) 48 F.(2d) 533, this day decided. Citation upon the rule was also quashed on the same ground as in that case, that is, because defendant, a resident of the state of Illinois, was present in the jurisdiction of the court as an attorney at law and therefore immune from such process.
Appellants have moved to dismiss the appeal upon the grounds: (1) That this court "is without jurisdiction to review the judgment of the court below because the proceeding * * * was a contempt proceeding and because" it was not maintainable upon the facts alleged; and (2) the decree appealed from was not final.
The petition for the rule alleged that the defendant in suit No. 129 in equity, Mrs. Florence T. Holland, and her husband, W. P. Holland, had conspired with the defendant Lamb and his firm and had "set over and assigned" to him and them $90,000 of the trust fund estate involved in that cause, with full knowledge of its purpose to subject the same to the alleged trust and lien of the creditors of W. P. Holland, all in contemptuous disregard of the authority and jurisdiction of the court below. Among other things, the prayer was that the defendant and others therein named be cited to appear before the court "upon a day to be named by the court, there to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of this court." The rule was filed on April 21, 1930, and on the same day the court signed an order to show cause on the following day at 9 o'clock a. m., why the defendant therein should not be punished as for contempt. The matter was continued to a later date, and on July 22, 1930, Lamb filed his motion to quash the service....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heikkila v. Barber
...This Finding was not objected to (although plaintiff did seek to have it supplemented). 12 The opinion of the Court of Appeals, 5 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 537, and its opinion in a companion proceeding, Schmitt v. Lamb, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 533, provide a clearer exposition of the case than the Supre......
-
Griffin v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD CO., VA.
...C.C.Ala., 181 F. 217. 4 Schmitt v. Lamb, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 533 (the case arising from the supplemental bill in equity), and Cramer v. Lamb, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 537 (the case arising upon the 5 Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U.S. 217, 52 S.Ct. 315 (the case arising on the citation) and Lamb v. Schmitt, Recei......
-
Carter v. United States
...court. O'Malley v. United States, 8 Cir., 128 F.2d 676; Converse v. Highway Const. Co., 6 Cir., 107 F.2d 127, 127 A.L.R. 860; Cramer v. Lamb, 5 Cir., 48 F.2d 537; Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U.S. 217, 52 S.Ct. 315, 76 L.Ed. 715; and that this is so even where the court did not have the jurisdiction......
-
Gilbert v. Johnson
...States, 1 Cir., 1946, 153 F.2d 66, 69; International Silver Co. v. Oneida Community, 2 Cir., 1938, 93 F.2d 437, 441; Cramer v. Lamb, 5 Cir., 1931, 48 F.2d 537, 538, aff'd 285 U.S. 217, 220, 221, 52 S.Ct. 315, 316, 317, 76 L.Ed. 715 (1932); Waterman Co. v. Standard Drug Co., 6 Cir., 1913, 20......