State v. Superior Court of King County

• Decision Date: 09 May 1902
• Citation: 68 P. 1051,28 Wash. 590
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE ex rel. DENHAM v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY et al.

68 P. 1051

28 Wash. 590

STATE ex rel. DENHAM v. SUPERIOR COURT OF KING COUNTY et al.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 9, 1902

Application for mandamus on the relation of H. T. Denham against the superior court of King county and W. R. Bell, judge thereof to compel the fixing of a supersedeas bond on appeal from a judgment for contempt.Granted.

William P. Reynolds and Arthur Remington, for relator.

James J. McCafferty, for respondent.

DUNBAR J.

The relator was fined $300 for contempt of court, and ordered committed until such fine was paid, and until an order of the court in relation to turning over certain moneys to a receiver was complied with.An exception was taken to the judgment for contempt, which was allowed.An appeal was taken from said judgment, and the court was asked to fix the amount of a supersedeas bond for the purpose of staying the judgment of contempt until the matter could be tried on appeal.The court refused to fix said bond, and the relator is here asking for a writ of mandamus to compel the court to fix a supersedeas bond.

The argument in this case has taken a wide range, both in the briefs and upon oral argument.It is not material, so far as the disposition of this case is concerned, whether the court was acting with or without jurisdiction in the contempt proceeding.If acting without jurisdiction, and an adequate appeal was available to the relator, the writ, under many decisions of this court, would not issue.If acting within its jurisdiction and the fruits of the appeal would be lost by reason of the refusal of the court to accept a supersedeas bond, the writ would issue.But in this instance it is conceded that the relator is entitled to an appeal, and the one question is, is he entitled to a stay of proceedings during the pendency of his appeal?This question, it seems to us, is definitely settled by the statute.Section 5811, 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St., is as follows: 'Either party to a judgment in a proceeding for a contempt may appeal therefrom in like manner and with like effect as from judgment in an action, but such appeal shall not have the effect to stay the proceedings in any other action, suit, or proceeding, or upon any judgment, decree, or order therein concerning which or wherein such contempt was committed.'The statute is so plain that it is difficult to construe it.The law provides for a stay of proceedings in appeals, and if an appeal may be taken in a proceeding for contempt with like effect as from judgment in an action, the effect must...