Manderscheid v. Dist. Court of Plymouth Co.

• Decision Date: 19 June 1886
• Citation: 69 Iowa 240,28 N.W. 551
• Parties: MANDERSCHEID v. DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.) EILENBECKER v. DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.) BRANCH v. DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.) GREENAN v. DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.) PAYSON v. DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.)
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

69 Iowa 240

28 N.W. 551

MANDERSCHEID

v.DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.)

EILENBECKER

v.DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.)

BRANCH

v.DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.)

GREENAN

v.DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.)

PAYSON

v.DISTRICT COURT OF PLYMOUTH CO. (TWO CASES.)

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 19, 1886.

Proceedings in certiorari, to test the validity of an order of fine and imprisonment made for an alleged contempt of court. The writ was issued in each case.Argo & Kelly, F. O'Donnell, and C. C. Tredway, for plaintiffs.

Struble, Rishel & Hart, S. M. Marsh, and A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for defendants.

ADAMS, C. J.

These cases are similar in most respects in regard to the facts, and they are submitted together. On the eighteenth day of March, 1886, the district court of Plymouth county adjudged the plaintiffs in the above-entitled cases to be in contempt, in violating certain writs of injunctionissued to restrain them from maintaining a nuisance by selling intoxicating liquor upon certain described premises, in violation of law, and rendered a judgment of a fine of $500 in each of the cases against the plaintiff Manderscheid, and of $500 against each of the other plaintiffs, and ordered that each be imprisoned in the jail of Plymouth county for the period of three months, but if the fine should be paid within 30 days from the date of the order the plaintiffs should be released.

1. The first action for an injunction against Manderscheid was brought in the name of Hugh Campbell. The other actions were brought in the names of other individuals. The proceedings for contempt were entitled the same as the respective actions in which the injunctions were issued. These plaintiffs, the defendants in the proceedings for contempt, moved to strike from the files the affidavit and notice to show cause against punishment for contempt, for the reason, as alleged, that no such proceedings can be had in an equitable action as such, and can only be brought and prosecuted in the name of the state of Iowa. The court overruled the motion, and these plaintiffs insist the court acted illegally in so doing. The court whose orders these plaintiffs were charged with having disobeyed was the court of equity which issued the injunctions. The same court must inflict the punishment for contempt, for each court must see to it for itself that its orders are not disobeyed. In Leavenworth v. Tipton, 1 Blackf. 166, BLACKFORD, J., said: “Whether the circuit court has been treated with contempt or not is for that court alone to decide.” In our opinion, it was proper to conduct the proceedings for...