Kidd v. Va. Safe Deposit & Trust Corp.

• Decision Date: 13 June 1912
• Citation: 75 S.E. 145,113 Va. 612
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: KIDD et al. v. VIRGINIA SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CORPORATION et al.

75 S.E. 145

(113 Va. 612)

KIDD et al.

v.VIRGINIA SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CORPORATION et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 13, 1912.

1. Contempt (§ 60^*) — Criminal or Quasi Criminal Contempt—Evidence—Weight.

The rules of evidence applicable in criminal eases apply to a proceeding to punish for a criminal or quasi criminal contempt for the violation of a decree of court, and the offense must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; and one cannot be punished summarily for contempt, without being brought clearly within Code 1904, § 3768, defining cases in which courts may punish for contempt.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contempt, Cent. Dig. §§ 182-187; Dec. Dig. § 60.*]

2. Contempt (§ 23*)—Violation of Decree.

A decree appointing a receiver of a bank, in a suit in which a depositor of a branch bank and her husband were not parties, contained no prohibition against the wife or husband. The manager of the branch was notified of the appointment and instructed to close the branch. The husband of the depositor, suspecting that something was wrong with the bank, sought out the manager, who told him that the bank was in trouble. The husband discovered that the manager had money enough to cash his wife's certificate, and obtained the cash therefor without any promise to refund the money. The wife had no knowledge of the transaction. Held, that the husband and wife were not guilty of contempt for violating the decree; it not appearing that the decree was personally served on defendants, or that they had actual notice of its rendition.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contempt, Cent. Dig. §§ 68-70; Dec. Dig. § 23.*]

3. Contempt (§ 79*)—Punishment.

The court, in a proceeding to punish for contempt, based on obtaining payment of a certificate of deposit after the appointment of a receiver of the bank, has no jurisdiction, where the evidence does not show defendant guilty of contempt, to require the refund of the money and imprison him until payment; imprisonment for debt being abolished by Code 1849, c. 188, § 2.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contempt, Cent. Dig. §§ 270, 274; Dec. Dig. § 79.*]

Appeal from Corporation Court of Alexandria.

E. L. Kidd and others were convicted of contempt of court for violating a decree of court in a suit instituted by the directors of the Virginia Safe Deposit & Trust Corporation against the corporation, and E. L. Kidd and wife appeal. Reversed as to appellants.

Coleman, Easley & Coleman, for appellants.

J. K. M. Norton and S. G. Brent, for appellee.

WHITTLE, J. This appeal is from the decree of July 21, 1911, directing appellants, E. L. Kidd and F. H. Kidd, his wife, and R. Lee Camden, who is not a party to this appeal, to restore and pay over to the receivers $2,193.33, with interest from December 29, 1910, and costs. The decree furthermore provides that, unless said payment be made within 30 days from its date, the parties shall be attached and imprisoned until the same be satisfied, unless sooner released by order of the court or judge.

The suit in which the foregoing decree was entered was instituted by the directors, who were also stockholders, of the Virginia Safe Deposit & Trust Corporation, against the corporation, alleging, among other things, that owing to the illness of the president of the corporation they were unable to carry on the business, though the assets were ample to meet all obligations, and praying for the appointment of a receiver or receivers, and that the assets be collected, and the affairs of the corporation wound up, under the orders of the court. The chief office of the corporation was in the city of Alexandria, but there were numerous branches in various parts of the state (one at Lovingston, Nelson county), where deposits of money were received and the corporation conducted business as a banking and bonding company.

On December 28, 1910, the court passed a decree appointing John S. Barbour and J. K. M. Norton receivers to take charge of the assets; and all officers, agents, and employes of the corporation and its branches were ordered to turn over to the receivers all property of the corporation in their possession or under their control.

The right of the plaintiffs to maintain this suit is strenuously controverted by the appellants, but in our view of the situation it is unnecessary to express any opinion on that branch of the case.

On June 10, 1911, the receivers filed a report, reciting that they had recently ascertained that after their appointment, and with full knowledge thereof by R. Lee Camden, manager of the Lovingston branch, and by appellants, he had paid to E. L. Kidd, as agent for his wife, F. H. Kidd, on two certificates of deposit, $2,193.33. This report was made the ground for a proceeding against these parties for contempt. Rules were accordingly awarded against them, answers filed, and evidence taken, upon which the decree under review was entered.

The object of this proceeding is to...