Meeks v. State
| Decision Date | 26 November 1906 |
| Parties | MEEKS v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Polk Chancery Court; James D. Shaver Chancellor; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
J. I Alley, for petitioner.
1. The arrest and imprisonment of petitioner is for debt in a civil action, without allegation or proof of fraud in its contracting, and is a violation of his constitutional rights.
2. From the facts appearing by his sworn response, petitioner is not in wilful contempt.
3. Standridge & Meeks prayed for and were granted an appeal to this court. Thereafter they were by statute allowed 30 days in which to execute supersedeas bond and supersede the judgment, and one year in which to lodge their transcript in the Supreme Court. The order requiring petitioner to pay over within 10 days was arbitrary, and in effect denied him the right of appeal.
The petitioner, W. M. Meeks, seeks to have this court review, on certiorari, the proceedings of the chancery court of Polk County wherein he was adjudged to be in contempt of said court for failure to obey its final decree in a cause in which he was a party.
The Ferguson Lumber Company brought suit in said court against Standridge & Meeks, a partnership composed of petitioner and S. L. Standridge, and also against the Walker Lumber Company, to recover of Standridge & Meeks the sum of $ 1,281.06 debt, and to have a lien declared in favor of the plaintiffs on a lot of lumber which said Standridge & Meeks had manufactured for the plaintiffs, but which had, as was alleged, been wrongfully sold to Walker Lumber Company.
The court rendered a final decree in the cause in favor of the plaintiffs against Standridge & Meeks for recovery of the amount of the debt, but found that the Walker Lumber Company was an innocent purchaser of the lumber without notice of the plaintiff's rights therein. The court further found that, of the purchase price paid by the Walker Lumber Company for the lumber, Standridge & Meeks had the sum of $ 287 in their possession at the time of the final hearing, and ordered them to pay said sum over to plaintiff within ten days to be credited on said debt. Standridge & Meeks prayed and obtained an appeal to this court. They failed to comply with the decree of the court with reference to the payment of said sum of $ 287, and the petitioner, Meeks (Standridge not being found), was cited to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in failing to obey the orders of the court. On the return day of the citation the petitioner appeared, and on hearing of the matter he was adjudged to be in contempt of the court and committed to jail until he should purge himself of the contempt or until the further orders of the court.
It is first contended on behalf of the petitioner that imprisonment for debt in a civil action is the effect of the order of commitment, and that this is forbidden by the Constitution (art. 2, § 16, Const. 1874).
There are some courts which hold, in view of constitutional provisions forbidding imprisonment for debt, that disobedience of an order for payment of money under a judgment or decree can not be punished as a contempt; but, according to the decided weight of authority, an order directing the payment of specific funds adjudged to be in the possession or control of the person at the time of the trial may be enforced by contempt proceeding, and punishment may be inflicted for disobedience of the order. State v. Becht, 23 Minn. 411; In re Milburn, 59 Wis. 24, 17 N.W. 965; Leach v. Peabody, 58 Vt. 485, 2 A. 737; Eikenberry v. Edwards, 67 Iowa 619, 25 N.W. 832; Pritchard v. Pritchard, 18 Ont. 173; Ex parte Cohn, 55 Cal. 193.
In one of the cases cited above the Supreme Court of Minnesota said:
The Supreme Court of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Dudley
...446 (1947). Punishment for such contempt is an inherent power of the court. Lane v. Alexander, 168 Ark. 700, 271 S.W. 710; Meeks v. State, 80 Ark. 579, 98 S.W. 378; State v. Dowdy, 86 Ark. 140, 109 S.W. 1175; Guyot v. State, 222 Ark. 275, 258 S.W.2d 569; Hands v. Haughland, 87 Ark. 105, 112......
-
Pitcock v. State
... ... court had the jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter ... of the cause of action in which the injunction was issued, ... the fact that it was erroneously and improvidently issued ... does not excuse disobedience on the part of those who are ... bound by its terms. Meeks v. State, 80 Ark ... 579, 98 S.W. 378 ... In ... considering this question, the distinction must not be ... overlooked between the violation of a preliminary injunction ... [91 Ark. 534] preserving the status quo of the ... subject-matter of the litigation during the ... ...
-
Pitcock v. State
...it was erroneously and improvidently issued does not excuse disobedience on the part of those who were bound by its terms. Meeks v. State, 80 Ark. 579, 98 S. W. 378. In considering this question the distinction must not be overlooked between the violation of a preliminary injunction preserv......
-
Cummings v. Fingers, 88-92
...judgment or decree into effect and render it binding and operative.' This power was recognized by the decision of this court in Meeks v. State, 80 Ark. 579 , where we upheld an order of the chancery court committing the appellant for contempt on account of failure to comply with an order of......