In re Kahn

• Decision Date: 14 April 1913
• Docket Number: 198.
• Citation: 204 F. 581
• Parties: In re KAHN et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

204 F. 581

In re KAHN et al.

No. 198.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 14, 1913

In the matter of bankruptcy proceedings of Louis J. Kahn and William J. Kahn, alleged bankrupts. The order adjudged Louis J. Kahn guilty of contempt of court in having willfully and deliberately neglected to give proper testimony on behalf of the receiver, and particularly for giving the testimony set forth in the petition, and further ordered:

'Second. That the said Louis J. Kahn be committed for the contempt aforesaid and be imprisoned in Ludlow Street Jail for the period of ten days.

'Third. At the expiration of the said period of ten days, the said Louis J. Kahn may present himself before this court for examination by the receiver and in the event that the said Louis J. Kahn fails or refuses to present himself for examination of the said ten-day period, or in the event that he shall fail and refuse to give proper testimony, an application may be made for the continuance of the said imprisonment.'

The petition that said Louis J. Kahn should be adjudged in contempt, upon which said order was based, was made by one Stephen Brooks Rosenthal as attorney for the receiver in bankruptcy and like the order itself was entitled as in the bankruptcy proceedings.

A. A Silberberg, of New York City (J. Joffe and A. A. Silberberg of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.

Rosenthal & Heermance, of New York City (C. J. Heermance, of New York City, and F. C. Briggs, of Syracuse, N.Y., of counsel), for defendant in error.

Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.

NOYES Circuit Judge.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gompers v. Buck Stove Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 Sup.Ct 492, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 874, lays down the rules which must be followed by the federal courts in administering the law of contempt. In that decision it is said that the character and purpose of the punishment distinguish civil and criminal contempts. The punishment for a civil contempt is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant in the contempt proceedings. The punishment for a criminal contempt is punitive-- to vindicate the authority of the court. If imprisonment be imposed in a civil proceeding it must be coercive in its nature. The committal must stand only unless and until the defendant performs the affirmative act required by the court's order. When inflicted in a criminal proceeding it is fixed and certain as a punishment for completed disobedience of orders or for other past wrongdoing.

The classification of contempts and contempt proceedings made by the Supreme Court in the Gompers Case is general in its application and applies as well in cases arising in bankruptcy proceedings as in other causes. Whatever may be the source of the power of bankruptcy courts to punish for contempt, it must be exercised according to the...