Steller v. Steller
| Decision Date | 17 May 1872 |
| Citation | 25 Mich. 159 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Caroline A. Steller v. Henry Steller |
Heard May 14, 1872
Appeal in chancery from Wayne Circuit.
Order of commitment vacated.
Browse T. Prentis, for complainant.
Ward & Palmer, for defendant.
The defendant appeals from an order of the Wayne Circuit Court in chancery, directing that he be committed to jail for not paying moneys ordered to be paid to complainant, by way of temporary alimony and expenses in a divorce suit. The papers on which the order of commitment was made, consist solely of affidavits showing that the order for the payment of the moneys was served upon him, and that payment was demanded and has not been made. The defendant insists that the constitutional provision inhibiting imprisonment for debt exempts him in this case; and if this is otherwise held, he claims to be liable to the commitment by way of punishment only; and that he is entitled first to show cause against it. On the other hand, the complainant relies upon the statute (Comp. L., § 4077), as justifying the proceedings which have been had.
Whatever may have been the proper construction of this statute, we are clear that, with imprisonment for debt forbidden, a party can not be imprisoned for non-compliance with such an order except on the ground of contempt of the authority of the court. There must be in the case something of wrong beyond the mere failure to pay money; and the party, before he can be convicted and punished for it, must have an opportunity to be heard in his own exculpation. Here the party is ordered into confinement on papers he is not allowed to answer, though it could not be known that he might not effectually disprove all charges against him, if suffered to do so. It is possible he might be able to show that the first order was never served upon him, or that no demand of payment was made, or, if made, was complied with; or, failing in these, his inability to pay may be so absolute as to constitute a most effectual excuse. It is contrary to the first principles of right to proceed to the punishment of a party, upon a mere ex parte showing. The case should have taken the ordinary course of proceedings for the punishment of contempts; giving the party an opportunity to present what he had to say in his own justification.
Various other irregularities are complained of in the case, upon which no opinion is expressed. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Edmonson v. Ramsey
...to support the doctrine here contended for: 6 English Ecclesiastical Reports 391; 3 Edwards, C. R. 194; Pain v. Pain, 80 N.C. ; Steller v. Steller, 25 Mich. 159; Carleton Carleton, 44 Ga. 216; Staples v. Staples, 24 L. R. A. 433, and note 9; Otillo v. Otillo, 44 So. 799; Webb v. Webb, 37 So......
-
Bowman v. Webster
...of peace.’ The defendant circuit judge with good reason relies upon an opinion of this court written in 1872 by Justice Cooley, Steller v. Steller, 25 Mich. 159. There, as here, the showing was that payment of temporary alimony as ordered had not been made, and defendant claimed the benefit......
-
Webb v. Webb
...the commitment for costs, is an answer to a rule to enforce it, and when made to appear, discharges from its obligation." In Steller v. Steller, 25 Mich. 159, Cooley, J., the court said: "There must be in the case something wrong beyond the mere failure to pay money; and the party, before h......
-
North v. North
...Chandler v. Chandler, 24 Mich. 176; and commitment for contempt is the proper remedy for refusing to pay the amount ordered, Steller v. Steller, 25 Mich. 159. Graves, J. December 20, 1873, these parties were divorced from the bonds of matrimony by decree of the court below, and about two mo......