Jernee v. Jernee

• Decision Date: 16 September 1896
• Citation: 54 N.J.E. 657,35 A. 458
• Parties: JERNEE v. JERNEE.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

35 A. 458

54 N.J.E. 657

JERNEE

v. JERNEE.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 16, 1896.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from court of chancery.

Application by William R. Jernee for a discharge from imprisonment under a commitment for contempt in failing to pay alimony decreed in an action by Abbie M. Jernee against him for divorce. From a decree denying the application, applicant appeals. Reversed.

William R. Jernee, in pro. per. (Willard P. Voorhees, of counsel). Amzi D. Taylor, for respondent.

BEASLEY, C. J. This is an appeal in the course of a proceeding for divorce. The appellant, having been committed for contempt on account of his failure to pay alimony as directed, made a motion to be discharged from such imprisonment, and it is the refusal of such application that forms the subject for review by this court. The warrant of commitment thus challenged was directed to the sheriff of the county of Middlesex, and, after the usual recitals, contained the order following, viz.: "Therefore we command you that you take the body of the said William R Jernee, and him safely and closely keep in your custody in the common jail of the county of Middlesex until he shall have paid to the said complainant the alimony now due her, and the costs of such contempt, to be taxed, and also a fine, $5, for the use of the state, together with the costs of this writ, or until our said court shall make order to the contrary," etc. On the hearing of the motion to discharge the defendant, as above mentioned, it was urged before his honor, the vice chancellor who sat on that occasion, that this commitment was fatally defective, inasmuch as neither it nor the order that authorized it specified the amount of the alimony to be paid, nor the sum of the costs. The complaint was that the appellant was committed to jail until he should pay a sum of money that was not fixed. In denying the motion the court expressed the view that it was the proper practice in such cases for the party to secure his discharge by an application to the court, upon satisfying the court that he had purged his contempt. No precedent for such a course has been produced or found. Such a procedure would be dilatory, oppressive, and absolutely without usefulness. The punishment for the contempt has already been determined and announced, and the method of purgation has also been made known. Why should the contemner be again set before the court? The only result would be a reiteration of the...