In re Mann, Civ. No. 54-39.
Decision Date | 01 December 1954 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 54-39. |
Citation | 126 F. Supp. 709 |
Parties | In the Matter of Lawrence MANN, Bankrupt Petitioner, for Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Benjamin Rudman, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.
Joseph H. Elcock, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
This is a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus brought under Chapter III, Section 9, of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S. C.A. § 27, and Bankruptcy Order No. 30, against the Sheriff of Middlesex County. Petitioner alleges that he is illegally confined as a result of his inability to comply with a State Court order, such inability arising from the fact that he has been adjudicated a bankrupt.
Findings of Fact.
The Writ issued, and after a full hearing, I find that as a result of litigation commenced on the equity side of the Superior Court for the County of Middlesex, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in May 1951, the presiding justice, on October 18, 1954, issued a final decree on a petition for contempt, the docket entry of that court showing the following:
."
Two days later, the petitioner filed in this court a petition in bankruptcy, and on that same day, was adjudicated a bankrupt.
The language contained in the docket entry of the Superior Court permits of no other construction than that the court was considering a civil contempt which could be completely purged by the payment of a fine of $5,000 remedial in nature, and for the sole benefit of his adversary.
This court recognizes that a proceeding for criminal contempt can be combined with one for civil contempt, provided the respondent is adequately advised of the two-fold nature of the proceedings. See Kreplik v. Couch Patents, 1 Cir., 190 F. 565 — but that was not the nature of the proceedings in the state court. Being purely a civil contempt and the fine remedial, we must assume that it is provable in bankruptcy, and subject to release if a discharge is issued to the petitioner. If, for any reason, the petitioner does not get a discharge in bankruptcy, then of course, the Superior Court order springs to life again and confinement may follow.
In Parker v. U. S., 1 Cir., 153 F.2d 66-70, 163 A.L.R. 379, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Town of Manchester v. Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
...v. Sodones, 366 Mass. 121, 130, 314 N.E.2d 906 (1974), citing Parker v. United States, 153 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1946); In re Mann, 126 F.Supp. 709, 710 (D.Mass.1954); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 446, 31 S.Ct. 492, 500, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911). Cf. Mass.R.Crim.P. 44, --- Mass.......
-
United States v. LD Caulk Company
... ... Noyes, Defendants ... Civ. 1372 ... United States District Court, D. Delaware ... December 2, 1954. 126 F. Supp. 694 ... ...
-
Sodones v. Sodones
...conclude that this case should be treated as one involving civil contempt alone. See Parker v. United States, supra; Matter of Mann, 126 F.Supp. 709, 710 (D.Mass. 1954). See also Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., supra, at 446, 31 S.Ct. at 500. 8 5. The question remaining is whether the s......
-
SEC v. Diversified Growth Corp., CA 81-84.
...Ballroom Co. v. Buck, 110 F.2d 207, 210-12 (1st Cir.1940); Cutting v. Van Fleet, 252 F. 100, 101-02 (9th Cir.1918); In re Mann, 126 F.Supp. 709, 710 (D.Mass.1954); 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contempt, § 112, p. 98; 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law, §§ 619-620, pp. 569-71; 31 ALR 3d 926, 930; Note, Impr......