Ramsay v. Ramsay
| Decision Date | 09 May 1921 |
| Docket Number | 21673 |
| Citation | 125 Miss. 715,88 So. 280 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | RAMSAY v. RAMSAY |
On suggestion of error. Sustained.
For former opinion, see 87 So. 491.
Suggestion of error sustained.
The appellant suggests and we are of the opinion that we erred in not setting aside the fifty dollar fine imposed on the appellant by the court below.
"Proceedings for contempt are of two classes: (1) Those prosecuted to preserve the power and vindicate the dignity of the court, and to punish for disobedience of its orders; and (2) those instituted to preserve and to enforce the rights of private parties to suits, and to compel obedience to orders and decrees made to enforce the rights and to administer the remedies to which the court has found them to be entitled." 13 C. J. 57.
In the first of these classes the punishment is for a past offense and when imposed must be suffered in the absence of executive clemency. In the second the contemner "can end sentence and discharge himself at any moment by doing what he had previously refused to do." Gompers v. Bucks Stove & R. Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874.
The first class is quasi-criminal, and a defendant therein should be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation (Grace v. State, 108 Miss. 767, 67 So. 212), cannot be compelled to testify against himself, and should be presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (Gompers v. Buck's Stove & R. Co., supra). Placing on one side the question of the propriety of combining the two classes of contempts in one proceeding, the case at bar comes solely within the second of these classes, for the petition by which it was begun contains no allegations setting forth special elements of contumacy on the part of the appellant; consequently his refusal to pay the alimony must be treated as being rather in resistance to the appellee than in contempt of the court. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & R. Co., supra. Moreover, the petition contains no prayer for the punishment of the appellant, but simply that he be coerced into the payment of the alimony.
The distinction between the two classes of proceedings for contempt was not called to our attention on the former hearing, was overlooked by us when considering the judgment to be rendered, and the cause was then decided in accordance with the rules governing proceedings for contempts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Masonite Corp. v. International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO
...as here, the contempt is civil. Hanna v. State ex rel. Rice, 169 Miss. 314, 324, 153 So. 371, 374 (1934); Ramsay v. Ramsay, 125 Miss. 715, 716, 88 So. 280, 281 (1921); Boylan v. Detrio, 187 F.2d 375, 378 (5th Cir. 1951); International Minerals & Chem. Corp. v. Local 177, United Stone & Alli......
-
Ex parte Redmond
...see Wagner v. Martin, 124 Ga. 387, or 4 Ann. Cas. 180; Grace v. State, 4 S. & M. 751, 108 Miss. 767, Cooke v. U.S. 267 U.S. 535; Raffsay v. Ramsey, 125 Miss. 715. It absolutely necessary for Redmond in his motion for a new trial (which motion is basis of the contempt proceedings in this cas......
-
Dennis v. Dennis
...Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787, 798-99, 107 S.Ct. 2124, 95 L.Ed.2d 740 (1987); see also Moulds, 791 So.2d at 225; Ramsay v. Ramsay, 125 Miss. 715, 88 So. 280 (1921). ¶ 12. David alleges that his due process rights were violated because: (1) Gretchen failed to serve the motion for contem......
- Brewer v. State