Robins v. Frazier

• Decision Date: 30 April 1871
• Citation: 52 Tenn. 100
• Parties: John R. Robins v. Thomas J. Frazier and others.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

52 Tenn. 100

John R. Robins

v.Thomas J. Frazier and others.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April Term, 1871.

FROM DYER.

Appeal from Chancery Court at Dyersburg. T. C. MUSE, Ch.

C. C. MOSS for Robins.

RICHARDSON for Echols.

NICHOLSON C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

One of the objects of the bill in this case was to enjoin defendants Echols and Frazier from enforcing a writ of possession which issued from the Circuit Court of Dyer county, by which the sheriff was ordered to dispossess complainant of a tract of land, and put defendants Echols and Frazier in possession. The writ of injunction issued, and was made known to D. P. Pierce, the deputy sheriff, who had the writ of possession issued from the Circuit Court. Defendant Echols directed the deputy sheriff to proceed and dispossess complainant, regardless of the injunction, and promised that he would be responsible for the consequences. This occurred on the 29th of December, 1868. The deputy sheriff, on that evening, went to the house of complainant, and about sundown commenced operations, and in about an hour and a half executed his writ by turning out the family, consisting of complainant, his wife, and about half a dozen children--several of them small--together with all their goods and chattels. It was a cold, rainy night the wife was feeble and sickly, and some of the children then sick. There was no vacant house to be had in the neighborhood, except a barn, into which the complainant and his family were permitted by the owner to go, after they had remained in the woods two or three days.

Upon application to the Chancellor, these facts being verified by affidavit, an attachment issued against the deputy sheriff and Echols, for contempt in disobeying and violating the writ of injunction. Echols appeared and answered, admitting his knowledge of the issuance of the injunction, and his directions to the deputy sheriff to execute the writ of possession, but excusing himself on the ground that he was irritated by the conduct of complainant in failing to give up the possession as he had promised, and because, instead of giving possession according to promise, he had procured the writ of injunction. The proceeding as to the deputy sheriff was dismissed by complainant.

The Chancellor held that Echols was guilty of contempt, but not being satisfied as to the damages which ought to be assessed against him, referred the matter to the Clerk and Master to take proof and report.

The order of the Chancellor was, that Echols should pay to the complainant “the damage caused by his being kept out of the possession of said land from which he was ejected on the 29th of December, 1868, until the last January Term of the Court.”

The Clerk and Master proceeded to take the depositions of many witnesses, and, at the next term, reported that defendant Echols ought to pay $300 damages, according to the proof, all of which accompanied his report.

Defendant Echols then excepted to the report, because the amount allowed by the Clerk and Master was not sustained by the proof, and was too large.

The Chancellor disallowed the exception of defendant Echols, and overruled a motion to recommit the report; and, thereupon, confirmed the report and gave judgment for $300 against defendant Echols.

No application was made by either party for a jury to try the facts in connection with the question of damages. Defendant Echols appealed from the decree to this Court.

The first objection taken to the decree is, that the Chancellor adopted an erroneous rule for arriving at the measure of damages, and that he ought only to have allowed for “the actual pecuniary loss directly sustained” by complainant. The power of the several Courts to issue attachments and inflict punishment for contempt is limited to the cases enumerated in sec. 4106 of the Code, among which is: “The willful disobedience or resistance of any officer of the said Courts, party, juror, witness, or any other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of said Courts.”

By sec. 4107, the punishment for contempt may be by fine...