Seastream v. N.J. Exhibition Co.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1907 |
| Citation | 65 A. 982,72 N.J.E. 377 |
| Parties | SEASTREAM et al. v. NEW JERSEY EXHIBITION CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Chancery Court.
Suit for injunction by August Seastream and others against the New Jersey Exhibition Company. From a decree of the Court of Chancery (61 Atl. 1041) adjudging complainants Seastream and others guilty of contempt of court for attempting to improperly influence the administration of justice, they appeal. Affirmed.
Warren Dixon, for appellants. Frank P. McDermott and Robert H. McCarter, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
The appeal in the present case is from a decree in chancery adjudging the appellants guilty of contempt of that court in attempting to improperly influence the due administration of justice therein in the above-stated cause, and imposing upon each of them a fine of a specified amount. Two reasons are assigned for reversing the decree, first, that the Court of Chancery was without jurisdiction to make it; and, second, that it was not justified by the proofs submitted to the court.
The second ground cannot be availed of on appeal. The proceeding was instituted solely for the purpose of punishing the alleged contemners, to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court. Such a proceeding is not reviewable by an appellate tribunal, except for lack of Jurisdiction in the court in which the proceeding is had. Dodd v. Una, 40 N. J. Eq. 714, 5 Atl. 155; Frank v. Herold, 64 N. J. Eq. 371, 51 Atl. 774.
Turning to the consideration of the other reason assigned for a reversal of the decree—namely, lack of jurisdiction—it needs no argument to demonstrate that the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to investigate an alleged attempt to improperly influence the due administration of justice in a case pending before it, and to punish the offenders if they are proved to be guilty. In fact, it is not contended otherwise by the appellants. The principal ground upon which they assert lack of jurisdiction is that they were never informed of the specific charge made against them, nor afforded an opportunity to meet it. Our examination of the case satisfies us that the fact is otherwise. The proceeding was begun by an order which directed the several appellants to appear in court at a time specified, and show cause why they, or some of them, should not be adjudged guilty of contempt in attempting to improperly influence the due administration of justice in the above-cited cause. This order was based upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gussman
...For other cases of contempt, see Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 69 N.J.Eq. 15, 59 A. 914 (Ch.1905), affirmed 72 N.J.Eq. 377, 65 A. 982 (E. & A.1907), McCauley v. McCauley, 88 N.J.Eq. 392, 395, 103 A. 20 (Ch.1918), and Sachs v. High Clothing Co., 90 N.J.Eq. 545, 108 A. 58 (Ch.1919),......
-
In Re Caruba.
...an indictment for perjury as a crime will also lie, see Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 69 N.J.Eq. 15, affirmed 72 N.J.Eq. 377, 65 A. 982; Edwards v. Edwards, 87 N.J.Eq. 546, 100 A. 608; Sachs v. High Clothing Co., 90 N.J.Eq. 545, 108 A. 58; Backer v. A. B. & B. Realty Co., 107 N.J.......
-
Szczepanik, In re
...1933); In re Baker, 8 N.J. 321, 336, 85 A.2d 505 (1951); cf. Campbell v. Fort, 3 N.J.L.J. 157 (Ch.1880); Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 72 N.J.Eq. 377, 65 A. 982 (E. & A. 1907); In re Bowers, 89 N.J.Eq. 307, 309, 104 A 196 (Ch.1918); In re Megill, 114 N.J.Eq. 604, 614, 169 A. 501 (......
-
In re Hendricks
...discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review in the absence of abuse of such discretion. Seastream v. New Jersey Exhibition Co., 72 N. J. Eq. 377, 65 A. 982; Oates v. U. S., 233 F. 201, 147 C. C. A. 207; and cases collected in 13 C. J. Here the evidence does not show an......