Wagner v. United States

• Decision Date: 02 October 1900
• Docket Number: 759.
• Citation: 104 F. 133
• Parties: WAGNER v. UNITED STATES et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

104 F. 133

WAGNER v. UNITED STATES et al.

No. 759.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

October 2, 1900

Habeas corpus. On May 1, 1899, Charles S. Houston, a bankrupt, filed a petition in bankruptcy in the district court of the United States for the district of Kentucky. In his schedule of debts, attached to his petition, it is stated: That the Campbell circuit court on January 14, 1899, rendered a decree of divorce in favor of Patti W. Houston, wife of the bankrupt, and also then, and again on January 27, 1899 entered a judgment or decree granting her an allowance of $5 per week as alimony, payable weekly. Of this alimony, 4 weeks, including that due May 1, 1899, has matured and is unpaid. That said Patti W. Houston is now about 22 years of age. That, according to the life expectancy tables, she will probably live 40 years, or 2,080 weeks, and that the alimony pendente lite unpaid is for the period of 10 weeks. On the 3d day of May, 1899, said Charles S. Houston was adjudicated a bankrupt. On the 9th of May, 1899, said bankrupt filed his petition and motion, asking an injunction and stay of proceedings in the action wherein the payment of alimony was adjudged as aforesaid. In the petition filed it is alleged that 4 weeks of said weekly allowance have matured and are unpaid; that said claim is one in which a discharge in bankruptcy will operate as a release; that said Patti W Houston is endeavoring to collect the matured alimony under rule for contempt, and that said prisoner is threatened with imprisonment unless he pays same, which he asserts he is unable to do; and that unless a proper order be made, staying further proceedings in said case in the Campbell circuit court, he will be imprisoned before the time shall have elapsed after which he can filed his petition for a discharge. Upon hearing said petition on said 9th day of May the bankruptcy court ordered that further proceedings in said Campbell circuit court for the enforcement of the claim of said Patti W. Houston for installments of alimony matured be restrained until further order of court. The restraining order was issued, and on the same day served on the judge of the Campbell circuit court. Said Patti W. Houston appeared and moved to dismiss the motion and petition on May 10, 1899 and to dissolve the restraining order. She averred that the only proceeding in said court pending against said bankrupt was a suit instituted in said court sua sponte to punish said Houston for contempt, for nonpayment of installments of alimony. She also averred that said decree in alimony was not a provable debt in bankruptcy, and that it could not be affected by a discharge in bankruptcy, or any proceedings therein. On the 11th day of May, 1899, while said order was in full force, the following order was made in the state court in said alimony suit: 'The rule issued in this case required the defendant to show cause why, on the several Wednesdays he was directed to perform orders of this court, he has not obeyed same. To this rule he responds that he has no money at the date of the response,-- a time subsequent to any of the times mentioned in the order. No showing is made of his inability to so obey this court at those times. Although informed of this defect in his response, he still stands mute. As to the plain requirements of this rule being, therefore, in contempt, it is therefore ordered that he be conveyed to jail, and there to remain until he purge himself of such contempt aforesaid. ' The same day a supplemental order was made as follows: 'The former order herein is so modified that the defendant will remain in jail until Monday next, when he will be returned to this court for further proceedings.' proceedings. ' Having been committed to jail under this order of the state circuit court, said bankrupt filed his petition before the district judge of the United States for the district of Kentucky, showing his detention under such order, reciting the decree for alimony and proceedings in bankruptcy, and the issuing of an injunction, as aforesaid. Thereupon the United States district judge issued a writ of habeas corpus ordering the said Charles S. Houston to be brought before him on the 13th...