State ex rel. Wise v. Jamison

• Decision Date: 21 October 1897
• Docket Number: 10,679--(16)
• Citation: 72 N.W. 451,69 Minn. 427
• Parties: STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. JAMES J. WISE v. ROBERT JAMISON
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

72 N.W. 451

69 Minn. 427

STATE OF MINNESOTA ex rel. JAMES J. WISE v. ROBERT JAMISON

Nos. 10,679--(16)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

October 21, 1897

Certiorari to review an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Jamison, J., adjudging relator guilty of contempt. Affirmed.

Order affirmed.

Fred C Cook, for relator.

Welch Hayne & Hubachek, for respondent.

OPINION

START, C. J.

Certiorari, on the relation of James J. Wise, against the respondent, as judge of the district court of the county of Hennepin, to review an order punishing the relator for contempt of court.

The record discloses the following facts: A divorce action pending in the district court of Hennepin county, wherein Eliza G. Wise was plaintiff and the relator, James J. Wise, was defendant, was tried on September 24, 1896, both parties appearing. The trial court made its findings of fact, and, among others, that the defendant had no property, but was in good health, and was receiving a salary of $ 150 to $ 200 per month, and, as a conclusion of law based thereon, that he pay to the plaintiff, as permanent alimony, $ 30 per month for the first year, and $ 25 per month for the second year, and no longer. Judgment was duly entered accordingly on September 25, 1896, and for a divorce absolute in favor of the plaintiff. After the time for appealing from this judgment had expired, and on May 1, 1897, no appeal having been taken, the relator made a motion in the district court to modify this judgment by striking therefrom each and every part thereof relating to the payment of permanent alimony by the relator to the plaintiff, on the ground that so much of the judgment was unauthorized, he having no property at the time of the trial or since. The motion was denied. Afterwards, on June 29, 1897, upon a hearing duly had upon an order to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt in disobeying the judgment of the court touching the payment of such alimony, the relator was, by an order of the court, adjudged to be in contempt, and to be imprisoned in the county jail until he complied with the judgment of the court. Thereupon the relator brought the record to this court by certiorari to review the order.

The relator assumes, and the respondent does not question the assumption, that the order adjudging him guilty of contempt is not appealable. The cause has been submitted on the merits by both parties without objection, and...