Hatlestad v. Hardin Cnty. Dist. Court
| Decision Date | 21 January 1908 |
| Citation | 114 N.W. 628,137 Iowa 146 |
| Parties | HATLESTAD v. HARDIN COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to District Court, Hardin County; W. D. Evans, Judge.
This is an original proceeding in certiorari to test the validity of an order and judgment finding complainant guilty of contempt in violating an injunctional order issued against him in a case of Plummer v. Hatlestad et al., in the Hardin county district court. Dismissed.Ward & Williams, for complainant.
C. L. Hays, for respondents.
Complainant contends that the trial court was without jurisdiction of the contempt proceedings, and acted illegally in adjudging him guilty of contempt for the reasons (a) that no case for contempt was ever docketed or tried; (b) that the evidence upon which the court acted was not taken in writing, filed and preserved as provided by law; and (c) that there was no testimony in the case showing a violation of the injunctional order. The return made by respondent, which must be accepted as correct in the absence of proper attack, shows that in a civil case known as Plummer v. Hatlestad et al., in the Hardin county district court, a temporary writ of injunction was issued restraining defendants therein “from further discriminating against him as a user and subscriber of the lines of the defendant company, and from further failing to furnish plaintiff as such user and subscriber equal facilities with other subscribers and users thereof, and from failing and refusing to furnish plaintiff telephone service as a subscriber with fidelity and without unreasonable delay, and from further failing and refusing to furnish him with adequate service as a telephone company until the further order of our said district court in the premises.” This order was issued and served May 12, 1906. Thereafter and on May 24, 1906, upon a showing made to the trial judge that this order had been violated by the complainant (Hatlestad) a precept was issued commanding him to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in violating the injunction. Complainant appeared and filed an affidavit to the effect that he had not violated the order, and also a motion to dissolve the temporary writ of injunction. Partial hearing was had before Judge Richard of the Hardin county district court, and the entire matter was then transferred by agreement to the court in term time. When the court convened for its October session there was pending the main case, the motion to dissolve having been overruled by Judge Richard, and the contempt proceedings, and it is claimed by respondent that all these matters were by agreement submitted together, resulting in an order denying a permanent decree, because unnecessary, and a finding that complainant was guilty of the contempt charged. This order and decree was entered November 15, 1906. The return made by respondent shows that the evidence in the injunction and contempt cases was taken at the same time, and by agreement; that the two cases were submitted on the same evidence, and were to be decided in vacation. True, complainant has filed affidavits to the effect that no such stipulation was made; but these cannot be received to contradict the respondent's return, and the records in the case. The shorthand notes of the testimony so taken were filed with the clerk in the proper season, and on December 17, 1906, were withdrawn by complainant's counsel for the purpose of having a translation made thereof, and on May 15, 1907, a translation of these notes was filed in the clerk's office. It is now contended that there never was any case of contempt docketed against the complainant, that neither the shorthand notes nor any translation thereof was ever filed in the contempt proceedings, and that the trial court was in error in adjudging complainant guilty under these circumstances. Section 4466 of the Code provides that, “where the action of the court [for contempt] is founded upon evidence given by others, such evidence must be in writing and filed and preserved.” As complainant was brought before the court upon a precept issued upon a showing made in the main case, there was no real necessity of docketing another case against him, save, perhaps, for the purpose of identifying the records and proceedings and the findings therein. The contempt proceedings were simply an incident to the main case, and whether or not a new case was docketed against complainant is immaterial, save for purposes of identification as above stated. But whether this be true or not complainant in his...
To continue reading
Request your trial