In re Singer
| Decision Date | 03 October 1929 |
| Citation | 147 A. 328 |
| Parties | In re SINGER. |
| Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Proceeding to punish Harry Singer for contempt of court Defendant held guilty of contempt.
Paul W. Ewing, of New Brunswick, for the prosecution.
Russell E. Watson, of New Brunswick, for defendant.
BUCHANAN, Vice Chancellor. The defendant, Harry Singer, installed plumbing and heating fixtures in three buildings, pursuant to contract with the owner of the buildings. Failing to receive payment when due, he entered the buildings and removed the fixtures he had installed. At the time of this act foreclosure suits had been instituted on the mortgages covering the three buildings, and decree for sale had been entered; he was not a party to the foreclosure suits.
For his act he is before this court charged with contempt.
The evidence is conflicting as to whether or not defendant had actual knowledge, when he committed the acts, that foreclosure suits were pending. There is a reasonable doubt, and I therefore find as a fact that he had not such knowledge.
On the other hand, I find as a fact that he knew of the existence of the mortgages, and that he knew that foreclosure proceedings probably, or at least possibly, had been commenced. He also had the common constructive notice of the pendency of the suits.
Under the circumstances, therefore, although he had not actual knowledge, he was under the duty of inquiry; and he is chargeable with knowledge of what he would have learned had he inquired, namely, that the mortgages were undergoing foreclosure, and that decree for sale had been entered.
Essentially, then, for the purposes of the present proceedings, he must be deemed in the same situation as if he had had actual knowledge. One who, with reckless indifference, does an act which he knows may be illegal, without any effort to ascertain whether or not it is illegal, stands before the court in no better position than one who knowingly does the illegal act. He cannot excuse himself by saying, "I did not know." He has acted at his peril; he has taken the risk.
Counsel for defendant argues that criminal intent must be shown, in order to convict defendant of contempt; that defendant cannot be adjudged guilty unless it appear that he intended to commit an act which was, under the facts as he knew them, a contempt of court.
To this I cannot subscribe. There are many criminal offenses in which an evil, criminal mind is not a necessary factor. One who drives an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Re Caruba.
...Co., supra; In re Ries, 101 N.J.Eq. 315, 138 A. 586; Ivens v. Empire Floor & Wall Tile Co., 119 N.J.Eq. 273, 182 A. 255; In re Singer, 105 N.J.Eq. 220, 147 A. 328; and Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U.S. 378, 39 S.Ct. 337, 63 L.Ed. 656, 11 A.L.R. 333, in support of the contention that perjury which......
-
Clark v. United States
...in the states. Dale v. State, 198 Ind. 110, 150 N.E. 781, 49 A.L.R. 647; State v. District Court (Mont.) 10 P.(2d) 586; In re Singer, 105 N.J.Eq. 220, 147 A. 328; State v. Keller, 36 N.M. 81, 8 P.(2d) 786; Boorde v. Com., 134 Va. 625, 114 S.E. 731; Huntington v. McMahon, 48 Conn. 174, 200, ......
-
In re Jibb
...one tending to obstruct the administration of justice and an unlawful interference with the subject-matter of litigation. In re Singer, 105 N.J.Eq. 220, 147 A. 328; Ivens et al. v. Empire Floor & Wall Tile Co., 119 N.J.Eq. 273, 182 A. 255. The Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to punish on......
-
N.J. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Berkshire, Inc.
...But there are other grounds upon which the respondent may be held accountable. Recently Vice Chancellor Buchanan held (In re Singer, 105 N. J. Eq. 220, 147 A. 328) that a plumber who had installed plumbing and steam-heating apparatus in a building subject to a mortgage, and who had not been......