State ex rel. Leftwich v. Dist. Court

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota (US)
Writing for the CourtGILFILLAN
Citation42 N.W. 598,41 Minn. 42
PartiesSTATE EX REL. LEFTWICH v DISTRICT COURT.
Decision Date10 June 1889

41 Minn. 42
42 N.W. 598

STATE EX REL. LEFTWICH
v
DISTRICT COURT.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 10, 1889.



(Syllabus by the Court.)

[42 N.W. 598]

1. This court may review an order punishing a person for contempt of court.

2. Where the penalty imposed is for the benefit of a party, the order may be brought here by appeal; if it is only in punishment of the offense, in other words, is for a criminal contempt, there can be no appeal and certiorari will lie.

3. An order adjudging a person guilty of a criminal contempt, and imposing a penalty, will not be reversed unless it is so apparent that no contempt has been committed as to indicate that the court used its authority capriciously, oppressively, and arbitrarily.

4. Counsel trying a cause, while he may except to the rulings and orders of the court, is bound to respect and obey them. If, after the court has ruled against a particular course of examination of a witness, he still persists in the same course of examination, he may be guilty of a contempt.


Certiorari to district court, Hennepin county.

Thomas J. Leftwich, attorney pro se.

Brooks & Hendrix, for respondent.


GILFILLAN, C. J.

This is a certiorari to bring here for review the proceedings of the district court in Hennepin county in imposing on the relator Leftwich a fine for contempt of court. The record certified here shows that there was on trial in the district court an action in which the relator was attorney for the plaintiff, and at the time he was examining a witness on behalf of the plaintiff. He had asked the witness several questions, all of the same general character, each being in substance but a repetition of those preceding it. The court, on the questions being objected to, as each was asked, decided them improper, and sustained the objections. The relator, however, persisted in making offers substantially similar to those made by the questions which had been overruled, and which the court probably construed to be made with intent to evade its rulings, or with some other than a bona fide purpose to fairly present the cause of his client. The court warned him that if he continued in that course it would consider it a contempt of court. He did continue it, and the court thereupon called on him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, and, as he showed none, the court adjudged him guilty of contempt, and directed to be entered against him a fine of $10.

There can be little, if any, question that an order adjudging a person guilty of contempt, and imposing a penalty upon him, may be brought here for review....

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • Curtis v. Tozer, Nos. 31777
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Enero 1964
    ...by inspecting records under writs of certiorari or habeas corpus. Ex parte O'Brien, supra [127 Mo. 477, 30 S.W. 158]; State v. Leftwich, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N.W. 598; In re Watts & Sachs, 190 U.S. 1, 23 Sup.Ct. 718, , 47 L.Ed. It is with respect to the extent of our inspection of the record......
  • Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 643
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 16 Diciembre 1924
    ...v. Kelley, 24 N.Y. 74; In re Wood, 82 Mich. 75, 45 N.W. 1113; Wells v. District Court, 126 Iowa, 340, 102 N.W. 106; State v. Leftwich, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N.W. 598; State v. Seaton, 61 Iowa, 563, 16 N.W. 736; Ex parte Thatcher, 2 Gilman (Ill.) 167. The reason for the rule is stated with great f......
  • In Re Schofield.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 24 Junio 1949
    ...held that costs and expenses were properly imposed on the attorney and his client. In State ex rel. Leftwich v. District Court, 1889, 41 Minn. 42, 44, 42 N.W. 598, 599, the court ruled that certain questions were improper. Counsel persisted in ‘making offers substantially similar to those m......
  • Van Dyke v. Superior Court of Gila County, Civil 2086
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • 30 Diciembre 1922
    ...544] Under statutes very similar to our own governing appeals, the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in the case of State v. District Court, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N.W. 598, has held that no appeal lies from an order adjudging one guilty of a criminal contempt, and that certiorari was an available remed......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • Curtis v. Tozer, Nos. 31777
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • 15 Enero 1964
    ...by inspecting records under writs of certiorari or habeas corpus. Ex parte O'Brien, supra [127 Mo. 477, 30 S.W. 158]; State v. Leftwich, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N.W. 598; In re Watts & Sachs, 190 U.S. 1, 23 Sup.Ct. 718, , 47 L.Ed. It is with respect to the extent of our inspection of the record......
  • Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 643
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 16 Diciembre 1924
    ...v. Kelley, 24 N.Y. 74; In re Wood, 82 Mich. 75, 45 N.W. 1113; Wells v. District Court, 126 Iowa, 340, 102 N.W. 106; State v. Leftwich, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N.W. 598; State v. Seaton, 61 Iowa, 563, 16 N.W. 736; Ex parte Thatcher, 2 Gilman (Ill.) 167. The reason for the rule is stated with great f......
  • In Re Schofield.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
    • 24 Junio 1949
    ...held that costs and expenses were properly imposed on the attorney and his client. In State ex rel. Leftwich v. District Court, 1889, 41 Minn. 42, 44, 42 N.W. 598, 599, the court ruled that certain questions were improper. Counsel persisted in ‘making offers substantially similar to those m......
  • Van Dyke v. Superior Court of Gila County, Civil 2086
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • 30 Diciembre 1922
    ...544] Under statutes very similar to our own governing appeals, the Supreme Court of Minnesota, in the case of State v. District Court, 41 Minn. 42, 42 N.W. 598, has held that no appeal lies from an order adjudging one guilty of a criminal contempt, and that certiorari was an available remed......
  • 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