State ex rel. Eder v. Searles

• Decision Date: 20 December 1918
• Docket Number: No. 21143.,21143.
• Parties: STATE ex rel. EDER et al. v. SEARLES, District Court Judge, et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

141 Minn. 267

170 N.W. 198

STATE ex rel. EDER et al.

v.SEARLES, District Court Judge, et al.

No. 21143.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 20, 1918.

Certiorari to District Court, Washington County; J. N. Searles, Judge.

Original writ of certiorari by the State, on the relation of Jake Eder and others, against J. N. Searles, judge of the District Court of Washington County, and others, to review its order adjudging relators guilty of contempt. Order in so far as imposing a fine affirmed, and writ of certiorari in so far as directed against the part of the order imposing imprisonment quashed.

Syllabus by the Court

An order in contempt proceedings imposing a fine for the disobedience of a writ of mandamus commanding the furnishing of telephone service and imprisonment until compliance with it is of a dual character. In respect of the fine it is in vindication of the authority of the court and imposes punishment for a contempt criminal or quasi criminal in character and is reviewable on certiorari. In respect of the imprisonment it is a remedy of a party to coerce obedience and is reviewable on appeal.

Such an order does not impose a fine nor an imprisonment such as is prohibited by Gen. St. 1913, § 8355.

It is not incumbent upon the party prosecuting a contempt proceeding for the disobedience of the writ to go forward with his proofs of the financial ability of the one commanded by the writ to comply with it. Comfort & Comfort, of Stillwater, for relators.

Clifford L. Hilton, Atty. Gen., and Edwin D. Buffington, of Stillwater, for respondents.

DIBELL, J.

Certiorari to the district court of Washington county to review its order adjudging the relators guilty of contempt.

[1] 1. In a proceeding in mandamus on the relation of the Attorney General the Four Lakes Rural Telephone Company, a copartnership, was directed to furnish one Henry Sullwold the same telephone facilities and service tht it furnished others similarly situated. See State v. Four Lakes Telephone Co., 169 N. W. 480. The relators Jake Eder and Max Krause are members of the copartnership, the former being designated president and the latter secretary. The company did not furnish service as directed and upon an order to show cause the relators were adjudged in contempt and were fined fifty dollars each and were ordered committed to the county jail until they furnished the service directed not exceeding six months.

This order is of a dual character. So far as it imposes imprisonment to coerce obedience to the writ and the furnishing of service it is a remedy for the benefit of a party; and so far as it imposes a fine it is in vindication of the authority of the court and is a punishment for a contempt criminal or quasi criminal in character. In the first aspect it is reviewable on appeal; in the latter on certiorari; and there is therefore before us only the question of the propriety of the imposition of a fine. State v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 63 N. W. 169;State v. Leftwich, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N. W. 598;In re Fanning, 40 Minn. 4, 41 N. W. 1076;Deppe v. Ford, 89 Minn. 253, 94 N. W. 679;Red River, etc, Ass'n v. Bernardy, 128 Minn. 153, 150 N. W. 383.

[2] 2. It is provided by G. S. 1913, § 8355, that before a constructive contempt can be punished by imprisonment or by a fine exceeding fifty dollars it must appear that the right or remedy of a party was defeated or prejudiced thereby; and by G. S. 1913, § 8365, it is provided that when the contempt consists in the omission to perform that which the party adjudged in contempt can yet perform he may be imprisoned until he performs.

As noted before the order gives a coercive remedy to the party wronged and punishment of the relators for their criminal or quasi criminal contempt. The fine was the punishment, and without a showing that a right or remedy was defeated or prejudiced, and none was found, the amount of it could not exceed fifty dollars. State v. Miesen, 98 Minn. 19, 106 N. W. 1134,108 N. W. 513. The imprisonment was for purposes of coercion and was authorized by section 8365. The act of the relators in disobeying the judgment in mandamus has resulted in two consequences; one the imposition of a fine as authorized by section 8355, and the other the imposition of imprisonment terminable upon compliance with the writ as authorized by section 8365. There has not been a fine nor an imprisonment forbidden by section 8355....