State v. Voss

• Decision Date: 03 June 1890
• Citation: 45 N.W. 898,80 Iowa 467
• Parties: STATE v. VOSS. STATE v. KAHLER. STATE v. BOE. STATE v. TANNA. STATE v. CONERY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

80 Iowa 467

45 N.W. 898

STATE

v.VOSS.

STATE

v.KAHLER.

STATE

v.BOE.

STATE

v.TANNA.

STATE

v.CONERY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 3, 1890.

Certiorari from district court, Clinton county; A. HOWAT, Judge.W. A. Maginnis and W. L. Smith, for plaintiff.

P. B. Wolfe, for defendants.

BECK, J.

1. These cases, arising upon like facts, and involving the same principles of law, are submitted for decision in this court together, upon one abstract. The records of all the cases are alike. There is no dispute upon the facts involved in the cases, which, briefly stated, are these: The defendants were, by proper proceedings under the statute, enjoined from selling unlawfully intoxicating liquors, of which they were found guilty, in the proceedings, whereby they maintained a nuisance, which by decrees they were enjoined from maintaining. After these decrees were rendered, defendants continued to sell intoxicating liquors contrary to law, and proceedings were thereupon instituted to punish them for contempt. They continued in contempt of the injunction until after these proceedings were instituted; but, before the citation for them to answer in the proceedings was served, they ceased to disobey the injunction, and quit selling intoxicating liquors, thus abating the nuisance. Upon the hearing in these proceedings the court found that defendants had violated the injunction by selling intoxicating liquors, and were in contempt, and subject to punishment therefor, and in each case entered a judgment for a fine of $500 against the defendant therein, and an order that he stand committed to the county jail for 30 days unless the fine and costs be sooner paid. The judgment contains a condition in this language: “The execution of this judgment is to be suspended during the pleasure of the court; but whenever the court, or one of the judges thereof, so directs, execution and warrant of commitment are to issue. The clerk is to pay W. A. Maginnis and W. L. Smith, attorneys in said cases, ten per cent. of the fine paid, whenever the said fine, or any part thereof, is paid.” The validity of this condition is involved in the only question arising in the case.

2. Certiorari is provided by statute for the review of proceedings to punish for contempt, and appeal does not lie in such cases. Code, § 3499.

3. The question of the case is a simple one, and demands but brief discussion. The condition of the judgment puts its execution wholly within the discretion of the court below, whether that discretion be exercised with or without justice or reason. If it be the pleasure of that court, process may never be issued upon the judgment. The case is this: We find a judgment for a fine against defendant, which can only be enforced at the pleasure of the court. The judgment is thus suspended, and the state is defeated of the remedy provided by law upon the exercise of the pleasure of the district court. If the power to do this exists in a case of contempt, it must exist in all cases punishable by fine and imprisonment. The law is no respecter of persons. One violator of law possesses no rights or immunities not held by another. It follows, then, that all fines and penalties prescribed by law may be collected only when it accords with the pleasure of the court in which judgment is rendered therefor. The claim of the...