State ex rel. Hurd v. Willis

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtSTART
Citation63 N.W. 169,61 Minn. 120
Decision Date13 May 1895
PartiesSTATE EX REL. HURD v. WILLIS, DISTRICT JUDGE.

61 Minn. 120
63 N.W. 169

STATE EX REL. HURD
v.
WILLIS, DISTRICT JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 13, 1895.


[63 N.W. 169]


(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Where in contempt proceedings the penalty imposed is for the benefit of a party, the order is appealable, and certiorari will not lie to review it; but, where the punishment is for a criminal contempt,-that is, one where the penalty is imposed solely to vindicate the authority of the court,-the order is not appealable, and it can be reviewed by certiorari. State v. Leftwich, 42 N. W. 598 41 Minn. 42, followed.

2. The relator in an action for a divorce, on the motion of the defendant therein, was called into court to show cause why a peremptory order should not be made directing the payment of alimony, as previously ordered, within a time to be fixed, and, in the event of his failure to comply with such order, he be punished for contempt of court. The court, upon the hearing, made its order granting the motion, and fixing the punishment, in the event the relator failed to comply with the order, but the court further convicted and punished him for a criminal contempt for his past disobedience of its orders. Held, that so much of the order as convicted him for a criminal contempt was not responsive to the motion; that he could not be so convicted except upon a proper charge made, with notice and opportunity to answer it. This much of the order is reversed, and writ quashed as to the balance.


Certiorari from district court, Ramsey county; John W. Willis, Judge.

Certiorari, on the relation of William J. Hurd, against John W. Willis, judge of the district court of Ramsey county, to review contempt proceedings against relator. Writ is quashed in part, and so much of the order as punished relator for a criminal contempt reversed.

Henry & R. L. Johns and F. W. Zollman, for relator.

McCafferty & Noyes, for respondent.


START, C. J.

Certiorari to review contempt proceedings against the relator in district court of the county of Ramsey. On the 10th day of April, 1895, in an action pending therein, wherein William J. Hurd, the relator, was plaintiff, and Anna A. Hurd was defendant, a motion on behalf of the defendant was presented to the respondent, as one of the judges of such court. The motion was based upon the affidavits of the defendant and her attorney and the records and files in the case, and was for a peremptory order against the plaintiff “(1) directing the payment of attorney's fees and alimony, as hereinbefore ordered by the court, and within a time to be fixed by the court, and that, in the event of the failure of the plaintiff to comply with such order, that he be punished for contempt of court; (2) for restraining the defendant from in any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 practice notes
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...for the benefit of the injured party. (King v. Barnes (N. Y.), 21 N.E. 182; Snow v. Snow (Utah.), 43 P. 620; State v. Willis (Minn.), 63 N.W. 169; State v. District Court (Minn.), 42 id., 598; State v. Nathans (S. C.), 27 S.E. 545; Leopold v. People (Ill.), 30 N.E. 348; Clark v. Burke (Ill.......
  • State ex rel. Eder v. Searles, No. 21,143.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • December 20, 1918
    ...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. 6......
  • State ex rel. Eder v. Searles, No. 21143.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • December 20, 1918
    ...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;......
  • Campbell v. Motion Picture M. Operators, No. 22,199.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • January 27, 1922
    ...to the law governing criminal contempts Page 240 and the remedial part of it to the law governing civil contempts. State v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 63 N. W. 169; Red River Potato Growers Assn. v. Barnardy, 128 Minn. 153, 150 N. W. 383. A conviction for a criminal contempt is not appealable, b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 cases
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...for the benefit of the injured party. (King v. Barnes (N. Y.), 21 N.E. 182; Snow v. Snow (Utah.), 43 P. 620; State v. Willis (Minn.), 63 N.W. 169; State v. District Court (Minn.), 42 id., 598; State v. Nathans (S. C.), 27 S.E. 545; Leopold v. People (Ill.), 30 N.E. 348; Clark v. Burke (Ill.......
  • State ex rel. Eder v. Searles, No. 21,143.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • December 20, 1918
    ...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. 6......
  • State ex rel. Eder v. Searles, No. 21143.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • December 20, 1918
    ...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;......
  • Campbell v. Motion Picture M. Operators, No. 22,199.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • January 27, 1922
    ...to the law governing criminal contempts Page 240 and the remedial part of it to the law governing civil contempts. State v. Willis, 61 Minn. 120, 63 N. W. 169; Red River Potato Growers Assn. v. Barnardy, 128 Minn. 153, 150 N. W. 383. A conviction for a criminal contempt is not appealable, b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT