Deauville Associates v. Eristavi-Tchitcherine, 12436.
| Decision Date | 02 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12436.,12436. |
| Citation | 173 F.2d 745 |
| Parties | DEAUVILLE ASSOCIATES, Inc. v. ERISTAVI-TCHITCHERINE et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
James Lathero, of Miami, Fla., David Sholtz, of New York City, and Samuel H. Rubin, of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.
John M. Murrell, of Miami, Fla., Frederick J. Ward, Jr., of Miami Beach, Fla., and Roger Edward Davis and J. M. Flowers, both of Miami, Fla., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, McCORD, and WALLER, Circuit Judges.
The fact that appellant, who sought to intervene in the Court below, had acquired its alleged interest in the subject matter of this litigation from parties who violated an injunction of the Court in transferring such interest to the petitioner, should not necessarily defeat or destroy whatever right, title, and interest in such property that the petitioner acquired from such contemnor. The Court in such circumstances has the unquestioned right and power to require such a contemnor to purge himself of contempt as a matter of punishment, but in so doing it should not deprive such purchaser of property from such contemnor of whatever right, title, or interest such purchaser may have acquired in such sale.
In Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215, it was held that a court did not have the right to strike from the files the answer of a defendant summoned in contempt and to condemn him without a hearing on the theory that he had been guilty of a contempt. A litigant may be punished for contempt by fine or imprisonment, or both, Sec. 387, Title 28, U.S.C.A. now 18 U.S.C.A. § 402, but the court should not prescribe, as a means by which he should purge himself of such contempt, that its doors be closed to him in the defense of either his liberty or his property.
The transaction between Lasser and Winkel on one hand and representatives of the petitioner on the other is doubtless binding on Lasser and Winkel and petitioner, inter sese, and, if so, petitioner doubtless has the right to have such fruits of the suit awarded to it under the contract as might otherwise have been awarded to Lasser and Winkel.
Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Summers
...company had sufficient interest in the subject matter of the litigation to intervene as a matter of right. Deauville Associates v. Eristavi-Tchitcherine, 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 745; Clark v. Sandusky, 7 Cir., 205 F.2d 915. And that right was exercised in full measure when the insurance company in......
-
Britt v. Britt
...contempt power does not comprehend the power to deprive one of his property and convey it to another. Deauville Associates, Inc. v. Eristavi-Tchitcherine, 173 F.2d 745, 746 (5th Cir. 1949); Day v. Schoreck, 31 Ill.App.3d 851, 334 N.E.2d 864 (1975); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 79 N.J.Super. 25, 35......
-
Deauville Associates v. Murrell, 12993.
...it appears that the issues here in controversy have already been decided by this court in the case of Deauville Associates, Inc. v. Eristavi-Tchitcherine, et al., 5 Cir., 173 F.2d 745, 746, wherein it was "The transaction between Lasser and Winkel on one hand and representatives of the peti......
-
Whiteside v. Whiteside
...on point with reference to a default entered as a sanction for contempt. However, as explained in Deauville Associates, Inc. v. Eristavi-Tchitcherine, 173 F.2d 745, 746 (5th Cir.1949), the leading case of Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409, 17 S.Ct. 841, 42 L.Ed. 215 (1897), "held that a court ......