State v. Smith

Decision Date30 July 1897
Citation50 P. 52,17 Wash. 430
PartiesSTATE EX REL. SMITH v. SMITH.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Appeal from superior court, Jefferson county; James G. McClinton Judge.

Proceedings by the state, on the relation of Ella W. Smith, against Del Cary Smith, for contempt. From judgment dismissing the proceedings, relator appeals. Reversed.

A. W. Buddress, for appellant.

REAVIS J.

The relator appeals from the judgment of the superior court of Jefferson county dismissing contempt proceedings brought to enforce the payment of alimony ordered by this court in the case of Smith v. Smith, reported in 15 Wash. 237, 46 P. 234. The affidavit filed by relator in the superior court substantially recited the divorce cause, and the terms of the original decree entered in the superior court in conformity with the mandate of this court, and by which the respondent Del Cary Smith, was required to pay relator the sum of $15 alimony monthly, commencing on the 1st day of November, 1895 until the 1st day of November, 1896, and the sum of $25 per month commencing on the 1st day of November, 1896, for the support of two minor children of relator and respondent; and that no alimony whatever had been paid to relator; and also that the order in the divorce cause required respondent to hold relator harmless from a note and mortgage on a house and lot awarded by the decree, and that no release from the obligation has been given to relator; and the affidavit concluded with the prayer that respondent be brought before the court, and dealt with according to law, and the decree of the court respected. An order was made requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for his failure to obey the decree of the court, which, with the affidavit, was personally served on the respondent. The respondent made a special appearance, and moved to quash the proceedings, and filed a demurrer to the affidavit, setting up that the order did not state jurisdictional facts upon which it might issue, that the affidavit did not state jurisdictional facts upon which the order might issue, and that the order was issued without authority of law. The court granted the motion to quash, and entered judgment dismissing the proceedings, from which relator appealed.

It is the duty of courts to enforce their orders, and when it comes to their knowledge that such orders are not obeyed they should require and enforce such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Fisch v. Marler
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 13 Diciembre 1939
    ... ... 17, 1915, both parties being at the time residents of that ... state. Appellant was then a single man; respondent was the ... wife of one Bernie Blair by whom she had one child, a ... daughter three years ... penalty for contempt unless he shows his inability to perform ... the terms of the command. State ex rel. Smith v ... Smith, 17 Wash. 430, 50 P. 52; State ex rel. Brown ... v. Brown, 31 Wash. 397, 72 P. 86, 62 L.R.A. 974; ... Croft v ... ...
  • In re Matter of Bryant v. Lopez, No. 37794-2-II (Wash. App. 1/26/2010), 37794-2-II.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 26 Enero 2010
    ...Bryant, has the burden of showing an inability to comply with a court order. Moreman, 126 Wn.2d at 40-41 n.4 (quoting Smith v. Smith, 17 Wash. 430, 432, 50 P. 52 (1897)). Bryant offers no explanation to support her argument that she lacked the ability to comply with the February 2008 court ......
  • Stablein v. Stablein
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 1962
    ...P. 44; Croft v. Croft, 77 Wash. 620, 138 P. 6; State ex rel. Brown v. Brown, 31 Wash. 397, 72 P. 86, 62 L.R.A. 974; State ex rel. Smith v. Smith, 17 Wash. 430, 50 P. 52. ...
  • Britannia Holdings Ltd. v. Greer, 55149-3-I.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • 6 Junio 2005
    ...126 Wash.2d 36, 40, 891 P.2d 725 (1995) (quoting In re King, 110 Wash.2d 793, 804, 756 P.2d 1303 (1988);) see also Smith v. Smith, 17 Wash. 430, 432, 50 P. 52 (1897) ("The rule is that the burden of showing inability to comply with an order of this nature is upon the 19. RCW 7.21.030(2) (em......
  • 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