People ex rel. Darby v. District Court of El Paso County

• Citation: 35 P. 731,19 Colo. 343
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. DARBY v. DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY et al.
• Decision Date: 05 February 1894
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

35 P. 731

19 Colo. 343

PEOPLE ex rel. DARBY v. DISTRICT COURT OF EL PASO COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Colorado

February 5, 1894

Original action at the relation of Thomas L. Darby for writs of certiorari and prohibition to the district court of El Paso county, and John Campbell, district judge. Denied.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by HAYT C.J.:

Petitioner was adjudged guilty of contempt in the court below, and sentenced to pay a fine of $25 and costs, and to stand committed until the same should be fully paid. Afterwards the execution of this sentence was stayed for a brief period, and this application presented. The contempt for which judgment was entered consisted in the alleged violation of certain writs of injunction issued in actions then pending. This proceeding was instituted by the filing of an affidavit as follows: 'The People, etc., v. Thomas L. Darby and _____ Bradford. Samuel S. Bernard, being duly sworn, on oath says that heretofore an injunction was issued out of said court in a certain suit wherein Samuel McDonald and others were plaintiffs and the Elkton Mining and Milling Company was defendant, and also another injunction in a certain other suit wherein Thos. L. Cathcart was plaintiff and said company defendant, and also another injunction in a certain other suit in said court wherein Hull and others were plaintiffs and said company defendant; that each of said injunctions was issued on behalf of said company restraining the plaintiffs in each of said cases, their agents and employes, and all persons acting for them, and all persons claiming under any contract or agreement into which the plaintiffs, or any of them, after commencement of said suits, and all persons in privity with said plaintiffs, or any of them from removing and from mining and selling any of the ores or minerals of or within the boundaries of the Walter lode mining claim in Cripple Creek mining district, in the county of El Paso, and from disposing of any of said ores already mined, or the proceeds thereof. Deponent says that defendant Darby was present in court, and had full knowledge of the granting of said injunctions, and that defendants have, as deponent is informed and believes, full knowledge of the issuance thereof; that sale injunctions are still in force. Upon information and belief deponent says that each of said defendants claim the right to work, mine, and remove ores of said Walter lode under some agreement made between them and plaintiffs since the commencement of each of said suits, and that whatever rights said defendants have in or to the ores of said Walter lode have been acquired since the commencement of said suits. Deponent further says that a large force of men have been since the issuance of said writs of injunction and still are, as deponent is informed and believes, engaged in mining and removing the valuable minerals from said Walter lode under and by direction of defendants, the property of defendant company; that at the time of granting of said injunctions and the issuance of said writs there was already mined and in transit to mills or smelters large quantities of said Walter ores and minerals, and that said defendants have since that time, and after full knowledge of said injunctions, disposed of such ores and proceeds the thereof. Wherefore deponent says that defendants are guilty of a violation of said injunction, contrary to the laws and the statutes, and against the peace and dignity of the people of the state of Colorado. Deponent says that he is secretary of said mining company, a corporation, and prays that defendants be required to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for violation of said injunctions.' The defendant, after service upon him, appeared, and moved to quash the citation. This motion was overruled, answer filed and proofs taken, upon which the defendant was adjudged guilty of contempt as charged.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A person who has actual notice of an injunctive order violates it at his peril.

2. Although section 277 of the Civil Code, with reference to filing notice of the...