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

Citation35 P. 731, 19 Colo. 343
Case DateFebruary 05, 1894
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Ex Parte Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 28 Febrero 1912
    ...among other things, of the violated process or order of the court, where that is the basis of contempt. People v. District Court, 19 Colo. 343, 35 Pac. 731; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; Hodges v. Sup. Ct., 67 Cal. 405, 7 Pac. 767; Ex parte Willand, 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 293, 9......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 1 Junio 1898
    ...too broad, he should take steps to have the same modified. In any event, it is his duty to implicitly obey. (People v. District Court, 19 Colo. 343.) In contempt proceedings one who has disobeyed the order is precluded from attacking or questioning its validity or correctness. (State v. Nat......
  • Brooks v. United States, No. 9544.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 10 Marzo 1941
    ...145 P. 532; Allen v. Thomas, Fed.Cas.No.239; State v. Ninth Judicial Dist., 34 Mont. 258, 86 P. 798; People v. El Paso County Dist. Court, 19 Colo. 343, 35 P. 731; Cf., In re Lennon, 166 U.S. 548, 17 S.Ct. 658, 41 L. Ed. 1110; 2, High on Injunctions, 4th Ed., 1440 a; 1, Freeman on Judgments......
  • Lucy v. Adams, Civ. A. No. 652.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • 16 Mayo 1963
    ...Co. v. Saalfield, 6 Cir., 190 F. 927; Lake v. Kern County Super. Ct., 165 Cal. 182, 131 P. 371; People v. El Paso County District Court, 19 Colo. 343, 35 P. 731; State v. Will, 86 Kan. 561, 121 P. 362; Schumacher v. Shawhan Distillery Co., 178 Mo.App. 361, 165 S.W. 1142; State v. Ninth Judi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Ex Parte Landry
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • 28 Febrero 1912
    ...among other things, of the violated process or order of the court, where that is the basis of contempt. People v. District Court, 19 Colo. 343, 35 Pac. 731; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961; Hodges v. Sup. Ct., 67 Cal. 405, 7 Pac. 767; Ex parte Willand, 20 Eng. L. & Eq. 293, 9......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 1 Junio 1898
    ...too broad, he should take steps to have the same modified. In any event, it is his duty to implicitly obey. (People v. District Court, 19 Colo. 343.) In contempt proceedings one who has disobeyed the order is precluded from attacking or questioning its validity or correctness. (State v. Nat......
  • Brooks v. United States, No. 9544.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 10 Marzo 1941
    ...145 P. 532; Allen v. Thomas, Fed.Cas.No.239; State v. Ninth Judicial Dist., 34 Mont. 258, 86 P. 798; People v. El Paso County Dist. Court, 19 Colo. 343, 35 P. 731; Cf., In re Lennon, 166 U.S. 548, 17 S.Ct. 658, 41 L. Ed. 1110; 2, High on Injunctions, 4th Ed., 1440 a; 1, Freeman on Judgments......
  • Lucy v. Adams, Civ. A. No. 652.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • 16 Mayo 1963
    ...Co. v. Saalfield, 6 Cir., 190 F. 927; Lake v. Kern County Super. Ct., 165 Cal. 182, 131 P. 371; People v. El Paso County District Court, 19 Colo. 343, 35 P. 731; State v. Will, 86 Kan. 561, 121 P. 362; Schumacher v. Shawhan Distillery Co., 178 Mo.App. 361, 165 S.W. 1142; State v. Ninth Judi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT