Ludden v. State
Citation | 31 Neb. 429,48 N.W. 61 |
Parties | LUDDEN v. STATE. |
Decision Date | 24 February 1891 |
Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
1. Proceedings for contempt, not committed in the presence of the court, are instituted by filing an information under oath, stating the facts constituting the alleged contempt. The charge should be stated in a positive manner, and it is not sufficient for the affiant to allege that he “is informed and believes” certain material facts.
2. Proof examined, and held not to sustain the finding of the court that the plaintiff in error had violated the order of the court.
Error to district court, Lancaster county; FIELD, Judge.Chas. O. Whedon, for plaintiff in error.
G. M. Lambertson, for the State.
On the 5th day of April, 1890, the St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lincoln, Neb., brought an action in the district court of Lancaster county against the Board of Church Extension of the General Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in the United States, Luther L. Lipe, and Luther P. Ludden, in which the plaintiff claimed an interest in lot 6, block 91, in the city of Lincoln, etc. The prayer of the petition is “that a receiver may be appointed to take charge of said premises pending this litigation, and to receive and collect the rents thereof, and hold the same subject to the order of this court; that said defendants be restrained and enjoined from entering upon said premises, and removing said buildings, and from selling said premises or buildings, and from digging up the earth on said premises, and removing the same, and from erecting other buildings thereon, or in any wise interfering with said premises; that said deed from said defendant L. L. Lipe to said board be declared null and void, and that said Lipe and the said board be decreed to convey said premises to defendant, and defendant be decreed to be the owner thereof, subject to the said mortgages; that plaintiff have judgment for all rents collected as aforesaid, and for such other and further relief as equity may require.” The petition being duly verified, the judge entered the following order: “Upon application of the plaintiff for an injunction upon its petition duly verified, and it being necessary that the defendants should have notice of the application before an injunction is granted, it is therefore ordered that said cause be set for hearing on the 9th day of April, 1890, at 2 o'clock P. M., at the district court room in the city of Lincoln, Neb., and that the plaintiff be required forth with to notify the defendants of the time and place of said hearing, and that until the further order of the court a restraining order is allowed restraining the said defendants, the board of church extension and Luther P. Ludden, from entering upon the premises described in the petition, to-wit, lot 6, in block 91, in the city of Lincoln, Neb., and from removing the buildings now thereon, or digging up and removing earth therefrom, or erecting other buildings thereon, or from selling said lot or buildings, or in any wise interfering with said premises, upon the plaintiff executing an undertaking in the sum of $200, as required by law.” A copy of this order was served on the board of church extension and Ludden on the 7th day of April, 1890.
On the 10th day of April, M. L. Easterday filed an affidavit before Judge FIELD, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex Parte Landry
...of personal knowledge." 9 Cyc. p. 39; In re Wood, 82 Mich. 75, 45 N. W. 1113; Herdman v. State, 54 Neb. 626, 74 N. W. 1097; Ludden v. State, 31 Neb. 429, 48 N. W. 61; Sargent v. Warren, 22 N. Y. Wkly. Dig. 473; State v. Conn., 37 Or. 596, 62 Pac. 289; Freeman v. Huron, 8 S. D. 435, 66 N. W.......
-
Hughes v. Territory of Arizona
...Courts, 492; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 P. 961; Batchelder v. Moore, 42 Cal. 412; McConnell v. State, 46 Ind. 298; Ludden v. State, 31 Neb. 429, 48 N.W. 61; Rapalje on Contempts, secs. 93, 94; Ex parte Peck, 3 113, Fed. Cas. No. 10,885; Freeman v. City of Huron, 8 S. Dak. 435, 66 N.W......
-
Tasich v. State
...is not sufficiently defined to apprize the defendant of what he is required to meet in making his defense. In the case of Ludden v. State, 31 Neb. 429, 48 N.W. 61, it stated in the jurisdictional affidavit that affiant believed that Ludden participated in the violation of the injunction. In......
-
Keller v. Amos
... ... 506; Poweshiek v. Stanley, 9 ... Iowa 511; Lane's Will, 2 Dana [Ky.], 107; Pruden v ... Alden, 23 Pick. [Mass.], 184; Allen v. State, ... 21 Ga. 219; Moody v. Butler, 63 Tex. 210; ... Taymouth v. Koehler, 35 Mich. 22; Sturdy v ... Jacoway, 19 Ark. 499; Norman v. Olney, 64 Mich ... ...