Red River Valley Brick Corporation v. City of Grand Forks

• Citation: 146 N.W. 876,27 N.D. 431
• Decision Date: 06 March 1914
• Docket Number: 81912
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

146 N.W. 876

27 N.D. 431

THE RED RIVER VALLEY BRICK CORPORATION et al. v. THE CITY OF GRAND FORKS et al

No. 81912

Supreme Court of North Dakota

March 6, 1914

Rehearing denied April 13, 1914.

Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Kneeshaw Judge.

Reversed in part, and in part affirmed.

Appellant recovered costs on appeal.

Geo. A Bangs, and Geo. R. Robbins, for appellants.

Under the act in question the city stands in no representative capacity toward the owners or residents of the annexed tract of land; the rights of such owners and residents are not consulted, and they have no voice in the proceedings to annex their territory to the city. The act is invalid. People ex rel. Shumway v. Bennett, 29 Mich. 451, 18 Am. Rep 107; Morton v. Holes, 17 N.D. 158, 115 N.W. 256; People ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Holihan, 29 Mich. 116; State ex rel. Bolt v. Riordan, 73 Mich. 508, 41 N.W. 482; State ex rel. Williams v. Sawyer County, 140 Wis. 634, 123 N.W. 248; Glaspell v. Jamestown, 11 N.D. 89, 88 N.W. 1023; State ex rel. Johnson v. Clark, 21 N.D. 517, 131 N.W. 719; Peru v. Bearss, 55 Ind. 576.

The order dismissing the order to show cause is a final order and is appealable. Merchant v. Pielke, 9 N.D. 245, 83 N.W. 18; Ballston Spa Bank v. Marine Bank, 18 Wis. 491; Vilter Mfg. Co. v. Humphrey, 132 Wis. 587, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 591, 112 N.W. 1095; Rev. Codes 1905, § 5626 (7225).

The merits of the original litigation cannot be here involved. 9 Cyc. 11; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 56; 2 High, Inj. 4th ed. §§ 1416, et seq.; People ex rel. Davis v. Sturtevant, 9 N.Y. 263, 59 Am. Dec. 536; People v. Spalding, 2 Paige, 330; Erie R. Co. v. Ramsey, 45 N.Y. 644; Clark v. Bininger, 75 N.Y. 344; Cline v. Whittaker, 144 Wis. 439, 129 N.W. 400.

Courts possess inherent power to punish for contempt. 9 Cyc. 26; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 33; State ex rel. Crow v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205, 99 Am. St. Rep. 624, 76 S.W. 88; Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 P. 964; Re Hanson, 80 Kan. 784, 105 P. 694; Drady v. District Ct. 126 Iowa 345, 102 N.W. 117; Rucker v. State, 170 Ind. 638, 85 N.W. 356; Mahoney v. State, 33 Ind.App. 658, 104 Am. St. Rep. 276, 72 N.E. 151.

The injunction is not vacated by appeal. 2 High, Inj. §§ 1698-1702, pp. 1647, 1648; 2 Cyc. 913; 22 Cyc. 1011; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 55; 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 436; 20 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 1231; 2 Spelling, New Tr. & App. Pr. § 561; State ex rel. Matthews v. Chase, 41 Ind. 356; Walls v. Palmer, 64 Ind. 493; Central U. Teleph. Co. v. State, 110 Ind. 203, 10 N.E. 922, 12 N.E. 136; Hawkins v. State, 126 Ind. 294, 26 N.E. 43; 6th Ave. R. Co. v. Gilbert Elev. R. Co. 71 N.Y. 430; Genet v. Delaware & H. Canal Co. 113 N.Y. 472, 21 N.E. 390; Lindsay v. Clayton Dist. Ct. 75 Iowa 509, 39 N.W. 817; Lindsay v. Hatch, 85 Iowa 332, 52 N.W. 226; Cole v. Edwards, 104 Iowa 373, 73 N.W. 863; Whitlock v. Wade, 117 Iowa 153, 90 N.W. 587; Young v. Rothrock, 121 Iowa 588, 96 N.W. 1105; Slaughter-house Cases, 10 Wall. 273, 19 L.Ed. 915; Hovey v. McDonald, 109 U.S. 150, 27 L.Ed. 888, 3 S.Ct. 136; Leonard v. Ozark Land Co. 115 U.S. 465, 29 L.Ed. 445, 6 S.Ct. 127; Knox County v. Harshman, 132 U.S. 14, 33 L.Ed. 249, 10 S.Ct. 8; Merrimack River Sav. Bank v. Clay Center, 219 U.S. 527, 55 L.Ed. 320, 31 S.Ct. 295, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 513; Green Bay & M. Canal Co. v. Morris, 63 C. C. A. 433, 128 F. 897; New England R. Co. v. Hyde, 41 C. C. A. 404, 101 F. 400; Merced Min. Co. v. Fremont, 7 Cal. 130, 7 Mor. Min. Rep. 309; Heinlen v. Cross, 63 Cal. 44; Swift v. Shepard, 64 Cal. 423, 1 P. 493; Dewey v. Superior Ct. 81 Cal. 68, 22 P. 333; Stewart v. Superior Ct. 100 Cal. 543, 35 P. 156, 563; Schwartz v. Superior Ct. 111 Cal. 106, 43 P. 580; Foster v. Superior Ct. 115 Cal. 279, 47 P. 58; Rogers v. Superior Ct. 126 Cal. 183, 58 P. 452; Clute v. Superior Ct. 155 Cal. 15, 132 Am. St. Rep. 54, 99 P. 362; Barnes v. Chicago Typographical Union, 232 Ill. 402, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1150, 122 Am. St. Rep. 129, 83 N.E. 932; Bullion B. & C. Min. Co. v. Eureka Hill Min. Co. 5 Utah 151, 13 P. 174, 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 449; Ex parte Whitmore, 9 Utah 441, 35 P. 524; State ex rel. Busch v. Dillon, 96 Mo. 56, 8 S.W. 781; C. H. Albers Commission Co. v. Spencer, 236 Mo. 608, 139 S.W. 325, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 705; State v. Barnett, 111 Mo.App. 552, 86 S.W. 460; Powhatan Coal & Coke Co. v. Ritz, 60 W.Va. 395, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1225, 56 S.E. 257; State ex rel. Bettman v. Harness, 42 W.Va. 414, 26 S.E. 270; Wilkinson v. Dunkley-Williams Co. 141 Mich. 409, 104 N.W. 772, 7 Ann. Cas. 40; Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Krieger, 91 Ky. 625, 16 S.W. 824; Maloney v. King, 26 Mont. 487, 68 P. 1012; State ex rel. Commercial Electric Light & P. Co. v. Stallcup. 15 Wash. 263, 46 P. 251; State ex rel. Flaherty v. Superior Ct. 35 Wash. 200, 77 P. 33; State ex rel. Burrows v. Superior Ct. 43 Wash. 225, 86 P. 632; State ex rel. Gibson v. Superior Ct. 39 Wash. 115, 1 L.R.A.(N.S. ) 554, 109 Am. St. Rep. 862, 80 P. 1108, 4 Ann. Cas. 229; Ft. Worth Fair Asso. v. Ft. Worth Driving Club, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 167, 121 S.W. 213; Lytle v. Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. 41 Tex. Civ. App. 112, 90 S.W. 316; Union Sawmill Co. v. Felsenthal Land & Townsite Co. 84 Ark. 494, 106 S.W. 676; Sheridan v. Reese, 121 La. 226, 46 So. 218.

The advice of counsel is no defense. 2 Cyc. 915; 9 Cyc. 25; 22 Cyc. 1013; State v. Nicoll, 40 Wash. 517, 82 P. 895; Wilcox Silver Plate Co. v. Schimmel, 59 Mich. 524, 26 N.W. 692; Lansing v. Easton, 7 Paige, 364; Hessey v. Gund, 98 Wis. 531, 74 N.W. 342; State ex rel. Mann. v. Brophy, 38 Wis. 427; Continental Nat. Bldg. & L. Asso. v. Scott, 41 Fla. 421, 26 So. 726; State ex rel. Mason v. Harper's Ferry Bridge Co. 16 W.Va. 864.

The injunction binds all persons, although not parties to the action, who have actual knowledge of it. Garrigan v. United States, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1295, 89 C. C. A. 494, 163 F. 16; Ex parte Teslard, 102 Tex. 287, 115 S.W. 1155, 20 Ann. Cas. 117; People ex rel. Stearns v. Marr, 181 N.Y. 463, 106 Am. St. Rep. 562, 74 N.E. 431, 3 Ann. Cas. 28; Ex parte Lennon, 12 C. C. A. 134, 22 U.S. App. 561, 64 F. 323; 22 Cyc. 1011; 22 Cyc. 1013; State v. Nicoll, 40 Wash. 517, 82 P. 895; 9 Cyc. 59; State ex rel. Hoefs v. District Ct. 113 Minn. 304, 129 N.W. 583; Murphey v. Harker, 115 Ga. 77, 41 S.E. 585; Ashby v. Ashby, 62 N.J.Eq. 618, 50 A. 473; Clay v. Watters, 101 C. C. A. 645, 178 F. 385, 21 Ann. Cas. 897.

Attorney's and counsel fees are included as costs and expenses, and may be imposed upon the persons sued. My Laundry Co. v. Schmeling, 129 Wis. 621, 109 N.W. 540; State ex rel. Hoefs v. District Ct. 113 Minn. 304, 129 N.W. 583; Davidson v. Munsey, 29 Utah 181, 80 P. 743; People ex rel. Garbutt v. Rochester & State Line R. Co. 76 N.Y. 301; Brett v. Brett, 33 Hun, 547; State ex rel. Curtis v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695, 27 P. 148; 9 Cyc. 55; 4 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 807; Taylor v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 83 Wis. 645, 53 N.W. 855; Emerson v. Huss, 127 Wis. 215, 106 N.W. 518; Vilter Mfg. Co. v. Humphrey, 132 Wis. 592, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 591, 112 N.W. 1095; Fall Brook Coal Co. v. Hecksher, 42 Hun, 534; People v. Spalding, 2 Paige, 330; Lansing v. Easton, 7 Paige, 364; Moffat v. Herman, 116 N.Y. 131, 22 N.E. 287; Socialistic Co-op. Pub. Asso. v. Kuhn, 164 N.Y. 473, 58 N.E. 649.

J. B. Wineman, for respondents.

The alleged contempt is more in the nature of a criminal contempt than civil, and if so, no appeal lies. Phillips v. Welch, 11 Nev. 187; Rapalje, Contempt, § 21; 7 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. 2829; Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co. 221 U.S. 441, 55 L.Ed. 805, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 874, 31 S.Ct. 492.

This court will refuse, in such cases to try any case anew that does not fall within the provisions of § 5630, Rev. Codes 1905. Noble Twp. v. Aasen, 10 N.D. 268, 86 N.W. 742; Zimmerman v. State, 46 Neb. 13, 64 N.W. 375; Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W.Va. 148; Rev. Codes 1905, § 7218.

The respondents obeyed the injunctional order in every particular, until after perfecting their appeal to the supreme court, and the execution of the judgment stayed. 18 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 299; AEtna Ins. Co. v. Kittles, 81 Ind. 97; Territory ex rel. Wallace v. Woodbury, 1 N.D. 85, 44 N.W. 1077; Carruth v. Taylor, 8 N.D. 172, 77 N.W. 617; Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Park Hotel Co. 37 Wis. 125; Hudson v. Smith, 9 Wis. 122; Schwarz v. Superior Ct. 111 Cal. 106, 43 P. 580; Stewart v. Superior Ct. 100 Cal. 543, 35 P. 156; Holmes v. Mattoon, 111 Ill. 27, 53 Am. Rep. 602; Foster v. Superior Ct. 115 Cal. 279, 47 P. 58; 9 Cyc. 12; Riley Bros. Co. v. Melia, 3 Neb. (Unof.) 666, 92 N.W. 913; State v. Johnson, 13 Fla. 33; Osborne v. Williams, 40 N.J.Eq. 490, 4 A. 439; Northern C. R. Co. v. Canton Co. 24 Md. 500; Gelston v. Sigmund, 27 Md. 345; State ex rel. Gibson v. Superior Ct. 1 L.R.A.(N.S.) 555, note; Exley v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 182, 33 N.W. 567.

An appeal of any kind, when perfected, deprives the court from which the appeal is taken or power or jurisdiction to enter further orders or process. Elliott, App. Proc. 541; Harris v. People, 66 Ill.App. 306; Heyman v Heyman, 117 Ill.App. 545; Ex parte Thatcher, 7 Ill. 167; Ambrose v. Weed. 11 Ill. 488; Jenkins v. Jenkins, 91 Ill. 167; People ex rel. Frank v. Prendergast, 117 Ill. 588, 6 N.E. 695; Smith v. Chytraus, 152 Ill. 664, 38 N.E. 911; Elzas v. Elzas, 183 Ill. 160, 55 N.E. 669; Cowan v. Curran, 216 Ill. 622, 75 N.E. 322; Continental Invest. & L. Soc. v. McKay, 69 Ill.App. 72; Anderson v. Anderson, 124 Ill.App. 621; Harris v. People, 66 Ill.App. 310; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. National Docks & N. M. Junction Connecting R. Co. 54 N.J.Eq. 647, 35 A. 433; Howe v. Searing, 6 Bosw. 686; Ireland v. Nichols, 9 Abb. Pr. N. S. 72; Ex parte Orford, 102 Cal. 656, 36 P. 928; Ruggles v. Superior Ct. 103 Cal. 125, 37 P. 211; Catlin v. Baldwin, 47 Conn. 173; State, Hunt, ...