Steers v. United States

• Decision Date: 28 February 1924
• Docket Number: 6252.
• Citation: 297 F. 116
• Parties: STEERS v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

297 F. 116

STEERS v. UNITED STATES.

No. 6252.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

February 28, 1924

Lewis O'Connor and Berryman Henwood, both of Hannibal, Mo., for plaintiff in error.

Allen Curry, U.S. Atty., and Carroll W. Harlan, Asst. U.S. Atty both of St. Louis, Mo.

Before KENYON, Circuit Judge, and MUNGER, District Judge.

KENYON Circuit Judge.

The facts in this case are as follows:

July 17, 1922, a temporary writ of injunction was issued by Hon Jacob Trieber, United States District Judge, in a certain case pending in the Northern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri, entitled 'Chicago, Burlington &amp Quincy Railroad Company, Complainant, v. International Association of Machinists and Others, Defendants,' by the terms of which defendants and all persons combining and conspiring with them were enjoined from interfering with hindering, obstructing, or stopping the agents, servants or employes of said railroad company in the maintenance, conduct, or operation of its business, or from compelling or inducing, or attempting to compel or induce by threats, force, violence, etc., any persons in the employ of the company to cease performance of their duties, or refuse to continue in its service.

August 15, 1922, the district attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri filed in the office of the clerk of the District Court of the United States in and for the Northern Division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri a petition supported by affidavit, asking against Oscar Steers a citation for contempt for violation of the aforementioned injunction. The case was entitled 'Criminal Cause No. 539.' On the same date an order was issued by Hon. J. W. Woodrough, Judge, in which he directed that a writ of attachment issue to the marshal of the Eastern District of Missouri, commanding him to arrest Steers, plaintiff in error, and to have him before 'this court' at the city of St. Louis, in the state of Missouri, on the 21st day of August, 1922, at 10 o'clock a.m., to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for the violation of said injunction. In said order the court also refers to the temporary injunction heretofore granted by 'this court' on the 17th day of July, 1922.

Plaintiff in error, on August 28, 1922, appeared at St. Louis, in the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri, and entered a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, alleging that the court was without jurisdiction to try the issues involved, and that the case was triable in the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri. This plea was overruled on August 28, 1922, and on August 29, 1922, answer was filed.

The case proceeded to trial before a jury in the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri, and conviction followed.

The injunction order alleged to be violated having been issued by the United States District Court of the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri, that court had the power to try parties in contempt thereof. The alleged disobedient, contemptuous acts complained of were committed in that division of the Eastern District; but, even were they committed in another division, or in another district in the state, the power to try and punish therefor was in the court of said Northern Division. Binkley v. United States (C.C.A.) 282 F. 244; McCourtney v. U.S.(C.C.A.) 291 F. 497; McGibbony v. Lancaster et al. (C.C.A.) 286 F. 129; Dunham v. United States ex rel. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. (C.C.A.) 289 F. 376.

In Re Debs, Petitioner, 158 U.S. 564, 595, 15 Sup.Ct. 900, 910 (39 L.Ed. 1092), the Supreme Court, speaking of contempt, said:

'To submit the question of disobedience to another tribunal, be it a jury or another court, would operate to deprive the proceeding of half its efficiency.'

The court of the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri was a separate and distinct tribunal from that of the Eastern Division of said district. As to where trials shall be had in a federal district depends entirely on the legislation upon the subject. Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U.S. 257, 17 Sup.Ct. 302, 41 L.Ed. 708; Post v. United States, 161 U.S. 583, 16 Sup.Ct. 611, 40 L.Ed. 816; Barrett v. United States, 169 U.S. 218, 18 Sup.Ct. 327, 42 L.Ed. 723. The act dividing the district (24 Stat. c. 271, p. 424) provides for the division of the Eastern Judicial District of Missouri into two divisions, the Northern and the Eastern, and provides for courts for each of said divisions, and that the courts for the Northern Division shall be held at Hannibal, Mo. Said act also provides as follows:

'And the said Circuit and District Courts for said divisions shall have the same powers and jurisdiction, with the same right to parties to prosecute appeals and writs of error thereupon, as now pertain to the District and Circuit Courts for said Eastern and Western Judicial Districts. ' Section 6.

Later Congress amended the act as to the time of holding terms of court in the respective divisions. 25 Stat. c. 129. By chapter 202, 26 Stat., further provision is made as to the holding of said courts. It is apparent from these various acts that the Congress under its constitutional power ordained and established a United States District Court for the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri as a distinct entity from the court of the Eastern Division of said Eastern District of Missouri, and created and fixed separate territorial jurisdiction for each division.

There was no case pending in the Eastern Division of the Eastern District of Missouri covering the matter in question. It was the court of the Northern Division whose order, it is alleged, was disobeyed. The petition for citation was filed in that court, and the citation to attach plaintiff in error issued out of that court. The venue of the action was there. No agreement was ever made to transfer the case to the Eastern Division of the Eastern District.

While the statutes and amendments thereto, herein referred...