Graham v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 28 February 1914
• Citation: 164 S.W. 781
• Parties: GRAHAM et ux. v. WILLIAMSON.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

164 S.W. 781

GRAHAM et ux. v. WILLIAMSON.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

February 28, 1914.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Maury County; J. P. Abernathy, Chancellor.

Suit by J. P. Graham and wife against J. R. Williamson. From a judgment of contempt against defendant for failure to obey an injunction, he appeals. On motion to transfer to the Court of Civil Appeals. Motion granted.

Peebles & Forgey and J. T. Williamson, both of Columbia, for appellant. Holding & Garner, of Columbia, for appellees.

NEIL, C. J.

It appears from the original bill in this case that a certain road in Maury county was ordered closed, as a public road, by the county authorities, and thereupon the defendant Williamson, an abutter on the south side, proceeded, on his own account, to place a fence across it; that complainant's land abuts on this road, and he has a private easement of way, regardless of the public character of the road, this easement having been in existence for more than 50 years; that the complainant thereupon prayed that an injunction be issued restraining the defendant from building the fence, and from maintaining the fence as built, so far as completed. An injunction was granted by Chancellor Wikle on ex parte application, and was issued in accordance with the prayer of the bill. Subsequently in this case, proceedings in contempt were brought against the defendant because of his failure to obey the injunction. He filed an answer in which he averred that he had obeyed the injunction, so far as it restrained him from committing any further acts, but that the fence, so far as actually constructed, had been erected before the bill was filed, and it was insisted that, in so far as the injunction was mandatory, it was granted without jurisdiction because it was a granting of final relief on a mere ex parte application made at the beginning of the suit. Evidence was introduced and a judgment of contempt was awarded against the defendant, under which he was fined $25 and the costs of the proceeding. From this judgment he has appealed to this court. A motion is now made to transfer the case to the Court of Civil Appeals, on the ground that the controversy is within the jurisdiction of that court. This motion is resisted on the ground that a contempt proceeding is a criminal proceeding, and the Court of Civil Appeals has no jurisdiction of a criminal case.

While it is true that a contempt proceeding is of a criminal nature, it is also in the nature of a civil proceeding. By this is meant that proceedings for...