Home Inv. Co. v. Iovieno
| Decision Date | 09 October 1923 |
| Parties | HOME INV. CO. v. IOVIENO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Worcester County; W. A. Burns, Judge.
Suit by the Home Investment Company against Francesco Iovieno. From a judgment dismissing a petition to adjudge Giuseppi Iovenio and another in contempt, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 137 N. E. 382.
The petition charged defendants with violating an injunction restricting the use of a certain way by transporting ice thereover. The court ruled that respondents were not in contempt, and found as a fact that the acts complained of did not obstruct the way. At petitioner's request he also found that respondents had never used the way to transport ice by means of horses and sleds until after entry of the decree, and that they had knowledge of entry of the decree, and refused to make any finding as to whether it was the original intention that the way should be used only for foot passengers.
W. C. Foley, of Worcester, for appellant.
This is a petition praying that the defendants be adjudged in contempt for violation of an injunction. The judge found the material facts, ruled that the respondents were not in contempt, and ordered that the petition be dismissed. The plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff apparently relied upon the statutes as authorizing an appeal in contempt proceedings. G. L. c. 214, § 19; Id. c. 231, § 96; Samuel v. Page-Storms Drop Forge Co., 243 Mass. 133, 137 N. E. 169.
[1][2][3] It is doubtful whether those statutes were intended to apply to contempt proceedings, or whether, if so intended and phrased, they would be constitutional. It is an essential part of the common-law conception of a court of superior jurisdiction that it possesses summary power with respect to contempts tending to obstruct or degrade the administration of justice. Cartwright's Case, 114 Mass. 230, 238;Walton Lunch Co. v. Kearney, 236 Mass. 310, 315 to 318, 128 N. E. 429. The proper way to review an error of law in contempt proceedings is by writ of error. Hurley v. Commonwealth, 188 Mass. 443, 74 N. E. 677,3 Ann. Cas. 757. Without pausing to consider or decide these questions, it is enough to say that, in any event, the ultimate decision must be against the plaintiff, and in such case there is no objection to stating the grounds of substantive law supporting that result even in a contempt case. Commonwealth v. McNary, 245 Mass.--, 140 N. E. 255.
[4] The respondents were enjoined ‘from using Jordan Promenade for uses other than passing and repassing thereon, to and from Jordan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberg
...were the proper method of bringing the case here. Kelly v. Morrison, 234 Mass. 382, 125 N.E. 576;Home Investment Co. v. Iovieno, 246 Mass. 346, 141 N.E. 78;Creeley v. Creeley, 258 Mass. 460, 155 N.E. 424, 52 A.L.R. 285;Commissioner of Banks v. Tremont Trust Co., 267 Mass. 331, 166 N.E. 848;......
-
Allard v. Estes
...of his grievance; whether under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, §§ 108, 109, or by writ of error, [197 N.E. 890]Home Investment Co. v. Iovieno, 246 Mass. 346, 141 N. E. 78, need not be considered. There is no occasion to discuss the contention of the defendant that the petition in bankruptcy was n......
-
Allard v. Estes
......L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 231, §§ 108,. 109, or by writ of error, [197 N.E. 890] Home Investment. Co. v. Iovieno, 246 Mass. 346, 141 N.E. 78, need not be. considered. . . ......
-
New England Novelty Co. v. Sandberg
...... Kelly v. Morrison, 234 Mass. 382 . Home. Investment Co. v. Iovieno, 246 Mass. 346 . Creeley. v. Creeley, 258 Mass. 460 . Commissioner ......