State ex rel. Tuthill v. Giddings
| Citation | 107 N.W. 1048,98 Minn. 102 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. TUTHILL et al. v. GIDDINGS, Judge. |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1906 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
Certiorari by the state, on the relation of C. D. Tuthill and others, against Arthur E. Giddings, as judge of District Court of Anoka county. Writ discharged.
A judgment directing the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the doing of some act, which is within the authority and jurisdiction of the court to command, cannot be collaterally impeached or avoided in proceedings to punish a disobedience of the writ.
If facts arise subsequent to the judgment rendering its modification proper, the exclusive remedy is by motion in the original action. Such new facts cannot be interposed as a defense in the contempt proceedings.
The record examined, and held to contain no reversible error. Fred S. Stewart (Fred B. Wright of counsel), for relators.
Wyman & Blanchard, for respondent.
Certiorari to review a judgment of the district court of Anoka county adjudging relators guilty of contempt of court. The facts are as follows: In 1904 an action was commenced against relators, trustees of school district No. 61 in Anoka county, for a peremptory mandamus requiring them to remove the schoolhouse to a new location, which had been selected by the voters of the district. Such proceedings were thereafter had that a judgment was entered in the action granting the relief prayed for and directing the issuance of a peremptory mandamus accordingly. A peremptory writ was subsequently issued upon this judgment in January, 1906, and the trustees failed and refused to comply with its commands, whereupon they were cited before the district court upon an order to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. After hearing, the court adjudged them guilty and imposed a fine of $5 each upon Tuthill and Frazier, or, in default of payment, that they be committed to the common jail of the county for the term of 20 days. No service of the order was made upon the other trustee, and no order of contempt was made against him. Thereafter the writ of certiorari was sued out in this court to review this judgment.
Several reasons were given by relators in the contempt proceedings for not complying with the commands of the writ of mandamus, all of which were overruled by the trial court, or held insufficient as a defense. Among other things, it was urged that relators could not remove the schoolhouse to the new site because no money had been appropriated by the district for the purpose of defraying the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reid v. Indep. Union of All Workers, 31192.
...... direct attack upon that injunction, under the rule of such cases as State ex rel. Tuthill v. Giddings, 98 Minn. 102, 107 N.W. 1048. There the ......
-
Reid v. Independent Union of All Workers, 31192.
...this proceeding is a collateral and not a direct attack upon that injunction, under the rule of such cases as State ex rel. Tuthill v. Giddings, 98 Minn. 102, 107 N.W. 1048. There the had violated the affirmative form of injunction which we call the writ of mandamus. It was held that it cou......
-
Koenigs v. Travis, 36719
...... where torts against the person are involved is in force in this state, and the wife cannot during coverture maintain a suit against her husband ......
-
Norris Grain Co. v. Nordaas, 35365
...... National Labor Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction and the state courts have none. . [232 Minn. 92] Lewis, Hammer & ... State ex rel. Hahn v. Young, 29 Minn. 474, 523, 9 N.W. 737, 738; State ex rel. Roberts ...Tuthill v. Giddings, 98 Minn. 102, 107 N.W. 1048. There the relator had violated ......