Gould v. Sessions, 123.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
Citation67 F. 163
Docket Number123.
PartiesGOULD et al. v. SESSIONS.
Decision Date22 April 1895

67 F. 163

GOULD et al.
v.
SESSIONS.

No. 123.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 22, 1895


Arthur V. Briesen, for plaintiffs in error.

John P. Bartlett and Charles F. Mitchell, for defendant in error.

Before WALLACE and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BROWN, District Judge.

SHIPMAN, Circuit Judge.

Upon a motion for preliminary injunction by John H. Sessions, complainant in a bill in equity against William B. Gould and others, defendants, for an infringement of letters patent in regard to trunk fasteners, the circuit court for [67 F. 164] the Southern district of New York granted a temporary injunction. 49 F. 855. The complainant, thereafter claiming that the defendants had violated the injunction order, proceeded, by motion in the cause, to have them punished for contempt. The circuit court, upon hearing the parties, found that the defendants were guilty of contempt, and ordered them to pay a fine of $500. Upon the appeal of the defendants from the order, this court held that, if it was to be treated as part of the original suit, it was interlocutory in its character, and could only be corrected by an appeal from the final decree, and, if it was an independent proceeding, it was a judgment in a criminal case, and could be reviewed only upon a writ of error. 63 F. 1001, 11 C.C.A. 550. The interlocutory decree of the circuit court upon final hearing in favor of the complainant in the bill in equity (60 F. 753) has been affirmed by this court upon appeal. 63 F. 1001, 11 C.C.A. 546. The defendants have now brought a writ of error to obtain a reversal of the order, and the first question is whether it was in effect a judgment in a criminal case. The motion for attachment for contempt was entirely disconnected from the proceeding upon final hearing, which took place before another judge than the one who heard the preliminary motion, and the fine was imposed as a fine to be paid to the government, and not to inure to the benefit of the plaintiff. In such a case the positive statement of the supreme court in New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 387, seems to be decisive in regard to the character of the order: 'Contempt of court is a specific criminal offense. The imposition of the fine was a judgment in a criminal case. ' The facts in the case are unlike those in Worden v. Searls, 121 U.S. 14, 7 Sup.Ct. 814, in which, though the proceedings were nominally those of contempt, the supreme court deemed them to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 1 Junio 1898
    ...Hansford (W. Va.), 28 S.E. 791; Dandridge's Case, 2 Va. Cases, 408; 28 S.E. 154; Hamlin v. R. Co. (Mass.), 49 N.E. 922; Gould v. Sessions, 67 F. 163; 14 C. C. A., 366. In the determination of the question as to whether a contempt has been committed, it does not depend upon the intention of ......
  • Bullock Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 1,242.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 8 Marzo 1904
    ...upon writ of error by this court. This conclusion was reached by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Gould v. Sessions, 67 F. 163, 14 C.C.A. 366. But in Nassau Electric R. Co. v. Sprague Electric Co., 95 F. 415, 37 C.C.A. 146, and Christensen Engineering Co. v. Westinghou......
  • Morehouse v. Pacific Hardware & Steel Co., 1,744.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 14 Febrero 1910
    ...Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 129 F. 105, 63 C.C.A. 607; Butler v. Fayerweather, 91 F. 458, 33 C.C.A. 625; Gould v. Sessions, 67 F. 163, 14 C.C.A. 366. The case before the court is clearly distinguishable from Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U.S. 1, 22 Sup.Ct. 269, 46 L.Ed. 405, in which......
  • Butler v. Fayerweather, 115.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 5 Enero 1899
    ...upon appeal from a final decree in the cause in which it was made. This court, in Gould v. Sessions, 35 U.S.App. 281, 14 C.C.A. 366, and 67 F. 163, held a contempt of court to be a criminal offense, and an order imposing a fine therefor to be a judgment reviewable by a writ of error at the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 1 Junio 1898
    ...Hansford (W. Va.), 28 S.E. 791; Dandridge's Case, 2 Va. Cases, 408; 28 S.E. 154; Hamlin v. R. Co. (Mass.), 49 N.E. 922; Gould v. Sessions, 67 F. 163; 14 C. C. A., 366. In the determination of the question as to whether a contempt has been committed, it does not depend upon the intention of ......
  • Bullock Elec. & Mfg. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 1,242.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 8 Marzo 1904
    ...upon writ of error by this court. This conclusion was reached by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Gould v. Sessions, 67 F. 163, 14 C.C.A. 366. But in Nassau Electric R. Co. v. Sprague Electric Co., 95 F. 415, 37 C.C.A. 146, and Christensen Engineering Co. v. Westinghou......
  • Morehouse v. Pacific Hardware & Steel Co., 1,744.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 14 Febrero 1910
    ...Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. & Mfg. Co., 129 F. 105, 63 C.C.A. 607; Butler v. Fayerweather, 91 F. 458, 33 C.C.A. 625; Gould v. Sessions, 67 F. 163, 14 C.C.A. 366. The case before the court is clearly distinguishable from Mueller v. Nugent, 184 U.S. 1, 22 Sup.Ct. 269, 46 L.Ed. 405, in which......
  • Butler v. Fayerweather, 115.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 5 Enero 1899
    ...upon appeal from a final decree in the cause in which it was made. This court, in Gould v. Sessions, 35 U.S.App. 281, 14 C.C.A. 366, and 67 F. 163, held a contempt of court to be a criminal offense, and an order imposing a fine therefor to be a judgment reviewable by a writ of error at the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT