King v. Barnes

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtFINCH
Citation21 N.E. 182,113 N.Y. 476
PartiesKING v. BARNES.
Decision Date03 May 1889

113 N.Y. 476
21 N.E. 182

KING
v.
BARNES.1

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 3, 1889.


Appeal from supreme court, general term, Second department. See 4 N. Y. Supp. 247.


[113 N.Y. 477]Wm. B. Hornblower, for appellant.

[113 N.Y. 478]W. W. McFarland, for appellee.


[113 N.Y. 479]FINCH, J.

The defendant, Barnes, appeals from an order which punishes him by fine and imprisonment for contempt. His offense consisted in advising and procuring the disobedience of the officers of the Staten Island Terminal Company to a final judgment rendered against them and him, which required the formal transfer of stock upon the books of the company, and to two orders granted upon the foot of that judgment, each of which fixed a time and place for such transfer, and required it to be made. The offense charged was certainly not a criminal

[21 N.E. 183]

contempt, and it is now insisted that it was not a civil contempt, because neither described in the specific definitions of section 14 of the Code, nor in the final provision of that section which preserves the common-law right in cases not specifically enumerated. I think the case is covered by the last clause of subdivision 4 of the section referred to. That subdivision specifies as constituting a contempt the act of a person who falsely assumes to be an attorney or officer of the court, and acts as such; who rescues any person or property in its custody; who prevents any party or witness from attending or testifying in any action or special proceeding; or who is guilty of any other unlawful interference with the proceedings therein. The subdivision specifies certain acts of interference with the due and orderly progress of an action or proceeding to its final and ultimate close, and then adds generally a provision which covers any other interference with it. So that the act of any person who interferes with the process or control or action of the court in a pending litigation unlawfully and without authority, is guilty of a civil contempt if his act defeats, impairs, impedes, or prejudices the right or remedy of a party to such action or proceeding. The action against the officers of the company remained pending through the permission to apply for further relief upon the foot of the judgment until its purposes were fully accomplished. Barnes interfered to prevent obedience to the judgment, and to defy [113 N.Y. 480]the orders of the court. He did this actively and intentionally, through his control over the officers, who...

To continue reading

Request your trial
53 practice notes
  • Juidice v. Vail, No. 75-1397
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1977
    ...or mistake'); cf. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 443, 31 S.Ct. 492, 498-499, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911); King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. 182 (1889). 13. As we did in Huffman, we save for another day the question of 'the applicability of Younger to all civil litigation,' 42......
  • Vail v. Quinlan, No. 74 Civ. 4773 (JMC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 13, 1975
    ...contempt 387 F. Supp. 637 sanctions and this has been long recognized by the courts of the State of New York. See, e. g., King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. 182 (1889); Feinberg v. Kutcosky, 147 App.Div. 393, 132 N.Y.S. 9 (3rd Dept. 1911) ("Failure to originally appear for examination in......
  • Department of Housing Preservation and Development of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 9, 1995
    ...and is utilized to protect the integrity and dignity of the judicial process and to compel respect for its mandates (see, King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. [208 A.D.2d 43] The rather simplistic formula for contempt sanctions proposed by HPD, to wit, Page 841 multiplying the number of in......
  • Gabrelian v. Gabrelian
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 20, 1985
    ...the public interest in the administration of justice (see People ex rel. Munsell v. Court of Oyer & Terminer, supra; King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. 184; Matter of Katz v. Murtagh, 28 N.Y.2d 234, 321 N.Y.S.2d 104, 269 N.E.2d 816; Judiciary Law § 750). Fines imposed for civil contempt ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
53 cases
  • Juidice v. Vail, No. 75-1397
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1977
    ...or mistake'); cf. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 443, 31 S.Ct. 492, 498-499, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911); King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. 182 (1889). 13. As we did in Huffman, we save for another day the question of 'the applicability of Younger to all civil litigation,' 42......
  • Vail v. Quinlan, No. 74 Civ. 4773 (JMC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • January 13, 1975
    ...contempt 387 F. Supp. 637 sanctions and this has been long recognized by the courts of the State of New York. See, e. g., King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. 182 (1889); Feinberg v. Kutcosky, 147 App.Div. 393, 132 N.Y.S. 9 (3rd Dept. 1911) ("Failure to originally appear for examination in......
  • Department of Housing Preservation and Development of City of New York v. Deka Realty Corp.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • January 9, 1995
    ...and is utilized to protect the integrity and dignity of the judicial process and to compel respect for its mandates (see, King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. [208 A.D.2d 43] The rather simplistic formula for contempt sanctions proposed by HPD, to wit, Page 841 multiplying the number of in......
  • Gabrelian v. Gabrelian
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • May 20, 1985
    ...the public interest in the administration of justice (see People ex rel. Munsell v. Court of Oyer & Terminer, supra; King v. Barnes, 113 N.Y. 476, 21 N.E. 184; Matter of Katz v. Murtagh, 28 N.Y.2d 234, 321 N.Y.S.2d 104, 269 N.E.2d 816; Judiciary Law § 750). Fines imposed for civil contempt ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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