Frank v. Harold
| Decision Date | 20 March 1902 |
| Citation | 51 A. 774,64 N.J.E. 371 |
| Parties | FRANK et al. v. HAROLD et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from court of chancery.
Suit by Joseph Frank and others against Clemmens Harold and others. An appeal from an order adjudging defendants guilty of contempt was dismissed. Application for a rehearing. Denied.
James G. Blauvelt, for appellants.
John W. Harding, for respondents.
The appellants were adjudged guilty of a contempt, and were fined and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 60 days, by the court of chancery, for willfully violating a restraining order of that court. The appeal was dismissed, upon the ground that the proceedings were punitive in their character, taken solely for the purpose of vindicating the authority and dignity of the court, and were, consequently, not reviewable. A rehearing of the matter is now asked for because, as it is said, the court of chancery was without power to make the order appealed from, so far as it sentences the appellants to a term of imprisonment This contention of the appellants is rested upon section 103 of the chancery act (1 Gen. St p. 392), which enacts: "That to enforce obedience to the process, rules and orders of the court of chancery, where any person shall be in contempt according to the law, practice or course of the said court, he shall for every such contempt and before he be released or discharged from the same, pay to the clerk in chancery, for the use of this state, a sum not exceeding fifty dollars, as a fine for the said contempt; and the said person being in court, upon process of contempt or otherwise, shall stand committed and remain in close custody until the said process, rule or order shall be obeyed and performed, and until the fine so imposed for such contempt with the costs be fully paid." This provision was enacted by the legislature June 13, 1799 (P. L. p. 434), and has ever since been upon the statute book. The argument is that by this legislation, the power which theretofore rested in the court of chancery, of punishing for contumacious conduct with respect to its authority or dignity, had been abridged, and that the only punishment which since that enactment the court has had power to inflict for such contempts is a fine of $50. Whether or not, prior to the adoption of the constitution of 1844, the powers of the court of chancery were subject to be abridged by the authority of the legislature, it is not necessary, for the purpose of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Buehrer, In re
...Reference is made to 'An Act respecting the court of chancery' passed on June 13, 1799. That statute was held in Frank v. Herold, 64 N.J.Eq. 371, 51 A. 774 (E. & A. 1902), appeal dismissed, 191 U.S. 558, 24 S.Ct. 844, 48 L.Ed. 302 (1903), to relate to a proceeding for further relief of a pa......
-
Department of Health v. Roselle
...that the proceeding in mind was a civil one for the relief of a litigant rather than a prosecution for contempt. In Frank v. Herold, 64 N.J.Eq. 371, 51 A. 774 (E. & A.1901), appeal dismissed 191 U.S. 558, 24 S.Ct. 844, 48 L.Ed. 302 (1903), the court held that the identical provision in the ......
-
Zippertubing Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
...employment relationship. E.g., Frank v. Herold, 63 N.J.Eq. 443, 52 A. 152 (Ch. 1901), appeal dismissed, rehearing denied, 64 N.J.Eq. 371, 51 A. 774 (1902); Jersey City Printing Co. v. Cassidy, 63 N.J.Eq. 759, 53 A. 230 (Ch. 1902); George Jonas Glass Co. v. Glass Bottle Blowers' Ass'n, 77 N.......
-
Ditmars v. Camden Trust Co.
...113, Ann.Cas. 1916B, 955; Dorrian v. Davis, 105 N.J.Eq. 147, 147 A. 338; Dodd v. Una, 40 N.J.Eq. 672, 5 A. 155; Frank v. Herold, 64 N.J. Eq. 371, 51 A. 774; Township of Haddon v. Loeffler, 2 N.J.Misc. 643; 17 C.J.S., Contempt, p. 8, § The decree is intrinsically a final decree in relation t......