Lindsay v. Hatch

• Decision Date: 19 May 1892
• Citation: 85 Iowa 332,52 N.W. 226
• Parties: LINDSAY v. HATCH.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

85 Iowa 332

52 N.W. 226

LINDSAY

v.HATCH.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 19, 1892.

Proceeding by certiorari to test the legality of an order refusing to punish and discharging a person accused of contempt.A. Chapin, for plaintiff.

ROBINSON, C. J.

It appears that in the case of Lindsay vs. Hagensick a valid decree was entered by the district court of Clayton county in May, 1887, permanently enjoining Hagensick from manufacturing and selling beer at or in a certain building near McGregor known as his brewery. The day after the decree was entered Hagensick appealed therefrom to this court, and filed a supersedeas bond, which was duly approved. His counsel thereupon advised him that the appeal and bond stayed all proceedings, by contempt or otherwise, to enforce the decree, and that he could lawfully continue the manufacture and sale of beer pending the appeal. In September of that year a proceeding to punish him for contempt was brought before the court named, which held that the appeal and supersedeas bond stayed all proceedings for contempt during the pendency of the appeal, and on that ground the court declined to punish for the alleged contempt. After the appeal had been taken and bond given, and before the decision of the court refusing to punish as stated, Hagensick, relying upon the advice of his counsel, had manufactured and sold beer at his brewery, and after the decision of the court referred to, relying upon that and upon the advice of his counsel, he manufactured and sold beer at his brewery during the pendency of his appeal. Upon that showing made by stipulation of parties, in a second proceeding to punish Hagensick as for a contempt, the defendant, as judge of the district court of Clayton county, found Hagensick not guilty of a contempt, and discharged him. This proceeding is brought to review that action.

The first decision of the district court, refusing to punish Hagensick for contempt, was reversed in the case of Lindsay v. Clayton District Court, 75 Iowa, 510, 39 N. W. Rep. 817, where it was held that an injunction remained in full force notwithstanding the fact that an appeal had been taken from the decree which granted it, and a supersedeas bond had been filed, although the right to issue process on the decree was suspended. It is well settled that the intent with which an act in violation of an injunction is committed does not affect the character of the act, although it may properly be considered when the penalty...