State v. Stevenson

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtROBINSON
Citation104 Iowa 50,73 N.W. 360
Decision Date16 December 1897
PartiesSTATE v. STEVENSON, JUDGE.

104 Iowa 50
73 N.W. 360

STATE
v.
STEVENSON, JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 16, 1897.


This is a proceeding in certiorari to review an order of the district court of Polk county, which granted a new trial to a person adjudged to be in contempt for violating an injunction against the maintaining of a liquor nuisance. Order annulled.

[73 N.W. 360]

James A. Howe, Co. Atty., and Jesse A. Miller, for the State.

McVey & McVey, for defendant.


ROBINSON, J.

In July, 1894, in a case then pending in the district court of Polk county, Iowa, in which the state of Iowa was plaintiff and Joseph Lehmer was defendant, a decree was rendered which in terms perpetually enjoined Lehmer from selling or keeping for sale, and from permitting others to sell or keep for sale, in violation of law, intoxicating liquors at No. 213 Walnut street, in the city of Des Moines, on a portion of a lot which was particularly described. In October, 1895, a petition was filed, in which Lehmer was charged with having violated that injunction. He was required to appear and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court, and appeared and filed an answer. Evidence was offered in behalf of the state and for Lehmer; and on the 19th day of November, 1895, he was found to have violated the injunction, and was adjudged to be guilty of contempt of court, and required to pay a fine of $500 and costs. On the 29th day of the same month, he filed a paper entitled a “motion for rehearing and new trial,” supported by an affidavit, in which he asked for a rehearing and a new trial in the contempt proceedings. At the next term of the court, in January, 1896, the attorneys for the plaintiff were orally notified of the application for a new trial, and appeared thereto. The affidavit of Lehmer and some applications to one of his clerks for the purchase of intoxicating liquors were introduced in evidence, and the motion was sustained.

1. The plaintiff contends that the court acted illegally and exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the relief asked by the motion; that a rehearing or new trial in contempt proceedings is unauthorized; that, if authorized, it is governed by the statute which regulates new trials in criminal cases; and if that is not the law, and a new trial was authorized, as the application in question was made 10 days after the judgment in the contempt proceeding was rendered, it should have been by petition, and, as it was by motion, it should not, for that reason, have been granted. It has been said that a proceeding to punish a contempt of court is in its nature criminal. First Congregational Church v. City of Muscatine, 2 Iowa, 71; Fisher v. District Court, 75 Iowa, 234, 39 N. W. 283;Grier v. Johnson, 88 Iowa, 102, 55 N. W. 80. In New Orleans v. New York Mail S. S. Co., 20 Wall. 392, it was said: “Contempt of court is a specific criminal offense.” See, also, 4 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 766. While it is undoubtedly true that proceedings for the punishment of a contempt of court are designed to punish wrongful acts, and are to that extent criminal in their nature, yet they are not governed by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...on error. (R. S., Sec. 3126; Myers v. State, 46 O. St., 473; cases supra; Blodgett v. State (Neb.), 69 N.W. 751; State v. Stevenson (Ia.), 73 N.W. 360; Hundhausen v. Ins. Co., 5 Heisk., 702; Tyler v. Hammersley, 44 Conn. 393; Baldwin v. Miles, 58 Conn. 496; State v. Horner, 16 Mo. App., 191......
  • Flannagan v. Jepson, No. 30853.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 7, 1916
    ...65 Iowa, 488, 22 N. W. 641, 54 Am. Rep. 19;Martin v. Blattner, 68 Iowa, 286, 25 N. W. 131, 27 N. W. 244;State v. Stevenson, 104 Iowa, 50, 73 N. W. 360;Jones v. Mould, 151 Iowa, 599, 132 N. W. 45. See Eilenbecker v. Dist. Ct., 134 U. S. 31, 10 Sup. Ct. 424, 33 L. Ed. 801. That a party charge......
  • State ex rel. Rippey v. Gruener, No. 35110.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 13, 1923
    ...the law. Peak v. Bidinger, 133 Iowa, 127, 110 N. W. 292;Rizer v. Tapper, 133 Iowa, 628, 110 N. W. 1038;State v. Stevenson, 104 Iowa, 50, 73 N. W. 360. Proof of a single violation is sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. State v. Reyelts, 74 Iowa, 499, 38 N. W. 377;Shideler v. Tribe of Si......
  • Hagedorn v. Rockafellow, No. 33519.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 31, 1920
    ...v. Cass County District Court, 75 Iowa, 232, 39 N. W. 283;Geyer v. Douglass, 85 Iowa, 93, 52 N. W. 111;State v. Stevenson, 104 Iowa, 52, 73 N. W. 360). The rule permitting the prosecution for contempt in the name of the state rests on the sovereign's interest in enforcing obedience to civil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...on error. (R. S., Sec. 3126; Myers v. State, 46 O. St., 473; cases supra; Blodgett v. State (Neb.), 69 N.W. 751; State v. Stevenson (Ia.), 73 N.W. 360; Hundhausen v. Ins. Co., 5 Heisk., 702; Tyler v. Hammersley, 44 Conn. 393; Baldwin v. Miles, 58 Conn. 496; State v. Horner, 16 Mo. App., 191......
  • Flannagan v. Jepson, No. 30853.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • July 7, 1916
    ...65 Iowa, 488, 22 N. W. 641, 54 Am. Rep. 19;Martin v. Blattner, 68 Iowa, 286, 25 N. W. 131, 27 N. W. 244;State v. Stevenson, 104 Iowa, 50, 73 N. W. 360;Jones v. Mould, 151 Iowa, 599, 132 N. W. 45. See Eilenbecker v. Dist. Ct., 134 U. S. 31, 10 Sup. Ct. 424, 33 L. Ed. 801. That a party charge......
  • State ex rel. Rippey v. Gruener, No. 35110.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 13, 1923
    ...the law. Peak v. Bidinger, 133 Iowa, 127, 110 N. W. 292;Rizer v. Tapper, 133 Iowa, 628, 110 N. W. 1038;State v. Stevenson, 104 Iowa, 50, 73 N. W. 360. Proof of a single violation is sufficient to warrant injunctive relief. State v. Reyelts, 74 Iowa, 499, 38 N. W. 377;Shideler v. Tribe of Si......
  • Hagedorn v. Rockafellow, No. 33519.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 31, 1920
    ...v. Cass County District Court, 75 Iowa, 232, 39 N. W. 283;Geyer v. Douglass, 85 Iowa, 93, 52 N. W. 111;State v. Stevenson, 104 Iowa, 52, 73 N. W. 360). The rule permitting the prosecution for contempt in the name of the state rests on the sovereign's interest in enforcing obedience to civil......
  • 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