In re Reese

Decision Date28 March 1901
Docket Number1,462.
Citation107 F. 942
PartiesIn re REESE.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

On June 13, 1899, the Western Coal & Mining Company, a corporation of the state of Missouri, exhibited its bill of complaint to the circuit court of the United States for the district of Kansas (Third division) against W. T. Wright and 45 other persons by name, charging that they, and each and all of them, were residents and citizens of the state of Kansas; and also against 'all members of the United Mine Workers lodges or unions in Crawford and Cherokee counties in the state of Kansas, each and all of whom are residents and citizens of the state of Kansas'; and against 'all members of District No. 14 of the United Mine Workers of America citizens of the state of Kansas, co-operating with them whose names are not known to your orator; and your orator prays that it may be permitted to add hereto the names of such other persons, citizens of Kansas, as may become known and charge them in apt words as in the premises.' The bill charges that the defendants so named and described by force, threats, intimidation, and violence are preventing and threatening to prevent the plaintiff's employes from prosecuting their customary and usual work at complainant's mines, and are by the same means preventing and threatening to prevent others who desire to work for complainant from so doing, to such an extent that complainant, without the restraining aid of the court, would be unable to prosecute its usual and ordinary business of mining coal, and would suffer irreparable injury and damage, not only from the enforced stoppage of its business, but in the serious and permanent injury to its machinery and equipment which would be occasioned by the enforced stoppage of their operation. The prayer of the bill was for a provisional and permanent injunction against 'said defendants and each and all other persons co-operating with them whose names are not known to your orator, and all other members of the lodges or unions of the United Mine Workers of America in Crawford and Cherokee counties, state of Kansas, and all other persons conspiring or combining with them.' But the process of subpoena was prayed for only against the defendants whose individual names were set forth in the complaint. On July 18, 1899, a temporary injunction was granted conformably to the prayer of the bill. The order granting the same commences with a statement to the parties to the suit as follows: 'Western Coal and Mining Company, Complainant, vs. W. T. Wright, Robert Gilmore, Hugh Bone et al., and All Members of the United Mine Workers Lodges or Unions in Crawford and Cherokee Counties in the State of Kansas, and All Members of District No. 14 of the United Mine Workers of America, and All Other Persons Co-operating with Them Being Citizens of Kansas, Defendants,' and, after stating the submission of a motion for a temporary injunction, proceeds as follows: 'It is therefore now here ordered that the defendants above named, and each of them, and all other persons who have or may combine, confederate, or conspire with said defendants, or either of them, are hereby severally and collectively temporarily enjoined and restrained from in any manner interfering with,' etc. This injunctive order was never served on Reese. Afterwards, on October 18, 1899, the complainant filed in the case so instituted by it against Wright and others, hereafter called the 'main case,' what it calls a 'motion to commit for violating injunction,' and, among other things, sets forth that John P. Reese was a citizen of the state of Iowa; that he came to Crawford county, Kan., at the head of a column of about 300 men, commonly in the main case called 'strikers,' and interfered with the miners of the complainant, and trespassed upon its property, in violation of the commands of the injunctive order. Many charges of misconduct by Reese are found in the motion to commit, but there is no charge that he combined, confederated, or conspired with the defendants named in the original bill, or that he aided or abetted the defendants so named, or that he was the agent or servant of the defendants, or any of them. The whole scope of the motion is that Reese acted independently, combining with certain persons generally referred to as 'strikers,' to interfere with the operation of complainant's mine in such a manner as would, if he had been a defendant in the case, constitute a violation of the injunctive order. The prayer of the motion is for a rule against Reese to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt for violation of the temporary injunction. Upon the filing of this motion, the court made an order in the main case as follows: 'Upon motion of said complainant, it is ordered that a rule be issued on John P. Reese to appear before this court on the 17th day of November, 1899, at 10 o'clock a.m., at its court room in the city of Ft. Scott, county of Bourbon, Kansas, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt for violation of the temporary injunction heretofore ordered and issued in the above cause.' Afterwards such proceedings were had that on November 27, 1899, the court made the following order: 'This cause came on for a hearing, and on the motion of said complainant to commit John P. Reese for violating the temporary injunction heretofore, to wit, on the 18th day of July, 1899, granted in said cause, and upon the rule issued by said court in said action against said John P. Reese, and duly served on him, citing him to appear and show cause, if any, why he should not be attached for contempt in failing to obey the said order of injunction. Said John P. Reese appearing in person and by his attorney, O. T. Boaz. Said complainant appeared by J. H. Rogers, W. C. Perry, and C. E. Benton, its attorneys. And the court, having heard all the evidence introduced in behalf of and against said John P. Reese on said hearing, and being fully advised in the premises, finds that the charges made against said John P. Reese in said motion are true, and finds that said John P. Reese has violated said temporary injunction granted by this court as aforesaid, and finds that said John P. Reese is guilty of contempt of court.

It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the court that said John P. Reese be imprisoned in the jail of Bourbon county, in the state of Kansas, for the term of three months from this day,' etc. This proceeding by habeas corpus was instituted by Reese after he had been committed to jail under the foregoing order of court, to secure his release on the ground that he had been deprived of his liberty without warrant of law, and by a court acting without jurisdiction for that purpose. The writ issued. The return of the jailer who had custody of the prisoner set up the foregoing facts and order of commitment as his justification. A hearing was had before Thayer, circuit judge, in the court below, and the prisoner was discharged. In re Reese (C.C.) 98 F. 984. From the order so discharging him the jailer duly prosecuted his appeal to this court, and assigned several different errors. The second, third, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eleventh assign, in different language, practically but one error, and that is that the court erred in holding that Reese was not a party to the suit in which the order of commitment was made, and that the injunctive order did not extend to him. The fourth is, in substance, that the court erred in holding that Reese was not amenable to the proceedings for contempt as an aider or abettor of persons who were the defendants in the main case. The other assignments, so far as they were urged at the hearing, were general in their character to the effect that the court erred in discharging the prisoner. It was also argued that the court below had no jurisdiction by the writ of habeas corpus to question the legality of the proceedings resulting in the order of commitment, but that such proceeding could only be reviewed by appeal from the order.

J. H. Richards and W. C. Perry (Morris Cliggitt, T. N. Sedgwick, and C. E. Benton, on the brief), for appellant.

W. H. Rossington, for petitioner.

Before CALDWELL and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and ADAMS, District Judge.

ADAMS District Judge, after stating the case as above, .

We are relieved from a consideration of the assignments of error to the effect that the trial court erred in holding that Reese was not a party to the main case, and that the injunctive order made in that case did not extend to him. Neither the oral arguments nor briefs of counsel urge upon us any such consideration, and it appears as an agreed fact in the record that it was admitted at the trial below 'that the order of injunction ran against citizens of the state of Kansas only, and that Reese, being a citizen of Iowa, was not within the terms of the order, and that he could not violate it ' But it is earnestly contended by counsel for appellant that, although Reese was not a party to the main case, and as such bound by the obligation of the court's restraining order, he was, nevertheless, properly punished for contempt of court in knowingly aiding, abetting, and assisting the defendants in that case, in violating the order made against them, and for organizing and leading a body of men independent of the defendants, or either of them, to do the acts and accomplish the results which the court undertook to prevent by issuing the orders against the defendants in the case. In order that there may be no misunderstanding of the situation, it should be borne in mind that Reese was not charged in the motion for commitment with aiding, abetting, or assisting, or combining, confederating, or conspiring with the defendants, or either of them, neither was he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Witte v. Dowd
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1951
    ...Siman (1918), 284 Ill. 28, 119 N.E. 940. As to person, see In re Mayfield (1890), 141 U.S. 107, 11 S.Ct. 939, 35 L.Ed. 635; In re Reese (8 Cir., 1901), 107 F. 942; Ex parte Reed (1879), 100 U.S. 13, 25 L.Ed. 538; Eureka Bank Cases (1912), 35 Nev. 80, 126 P. 655, 129 P. 308. As to subject-ma......
  • Union Pac. R. Co. v. Ruef
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • November 8, 1902
    ... ... v. Reliable ... Lodge (C.C.) 111 F. 264, by Judge Kohlsaat; U.S. v ... Weber (C.C.) 114 F. 950, by Judges Simonton and ... McDowell; U.S. v. Agler (C.C.) 62 F. 824, by Judge ... Baker; U.S. v. Kane (C.C.) 23 F. 748, by Judge ... Brewer; In re Reese (C.C.) 98 F. 984, by Judge ... Thayer; Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. R ... Co. (C.C.) 60 F. 803, by Judge Jenkins ... And the ... following are some of the decisions of the federal appellate ... courts on the different phases of injunctions against ... 'strikers' ... ...
  • In re Nevitt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • August 28, 1902
    ... ... 152, 28 L.Ed. 274; ... Ex Parte Terry, 128 U.S. 289, 305, 9 Sup.Ct. 77, 32 ... L.Ed. 405; In re Swan, 150 U.S. 637, 14 Sup.Ct. 225, ... 37 L.Ed. 1207; U.S. v. Pridgeon, 153 U.S. 48, 14 ... Sup.Ct. 746, 38 L.Ed. 631; Deming v. McClaughry, 51 ... C.C.A 349, 113 F. 639, 649; In re Reese, 47 C.C.A ... 87, 107 F. 942, 948; Ex parte Buskirk, 72 FED. 14, 21, 18 ... C.C.A. 410, 417, 25 U.S.App. 613, 615; Ex parte Ayers, 123 ... U.S. 443, 8 Sup.Ct. 164, 31 L.Ed. 216; Ex parte Fisk, 113 ... U.S. 713, 718, 5 Sup.Ct 724, 28 L.Ed. 117; Dynes v ... Hoover, 20 How. 81, 83, 15 L.Ed ... ...
  • Mechanic v. Gruensfelder
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 4, 1970
    ...process and the demonstrated refusal to be bound by judicial determinations. Gompers v. Bucks Stove and Range Co.,supra, In re Reese, 10 Cir., 107 F. 942. The power of criminal contempt springs not from the needs to protect a litigant, but from the inherent power of the courts to protect th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • An historical analysis of the binding effect of class suits.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 146 No. 6, August 1998
    • August 1, 1998
    ...U.S. 548 (1897). (253) Id. at 554. (254) 90 F. 598 (C.C.N.D. Ohio 1898). (255) Id. at 604. (256) See supra note 232. (257) See In re Reese, 107 F. 942, 945-46 (8th Cir. 1901) (asserting that a party, although not a named party to an injunction, may be punished for knowingly aiding in the vi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT