Wasserman v. United States

• Decision Date: 02 May 1908
• Docket Number: 2,160.
• Citation: 161 F. 722
• Parties: WASSERMAN v. UNITED STATES et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

161 F. 722

WASSERMAN v. UNITED STATES et al.

No. 2,160.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

May 2, 1908

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The defendant in a suit in equity was adjudged to pay a fine, and to be committed until he paid it, for contempt of court in violating a preliminary injunction. He sued out a writ of error and died before a hearing here. Held, the proceedings for the contempt were civil, and not criminal, and did not abate by his death.

Proceedings for contempt are of two classes-- criminal or punitive, and civil, remedial, or coercive. The former are conducted to preserve the power and vindicate the dignity of the courts and to punish for disobedience of their orders. The latter are instituted to protect, preserve, and enforce the rights of private parties and to compel obedience of the orders judgments and decrees of the courts made to enforce the rights and remedies to which the courts have decided that such parties are lawfully entitled.

David Goldsmith, for plaintiff in error.

George F. McNulty and J. R. Van Slyke, for the United States.

Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

In a suit in equity brought in the court below by the Cleveland Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company against Bennett Wasserman and others, to prevent alleged irreparable injury to the complainant's business and property, and to recover damages for injuries already inflicted, a temporary injunction was issued against the defendants, by which they were forbidden to buy, deal in, or sell any signed contract, nontransferable, reduced rate ticket thereafter issued by the railway company. Wasserman disobeyed this injunction, and upon an order to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt of process of the court a judgment was rendered that he was guilty of the contempt charged, and 'that, as a punishment therefor, the said Bennett Wasserman be fined in the sum of $500 and the costs of this proceeding, and that in default of the payment of said sums that he be confined in the common jail of the city of St. Louis until the fine and costs are paid, or until the further order of the court. ' He sued out a writ of error to reverse this judgment. After this writ was issued and before the case was submitted to this court for a hearing, he died. His death has been suggested, and the defendants in error insist that this proceeding has been abated by his death. They cite in support of this position Herrington v. State of Georgia, 53 Ga. 552, O'Sullivan v. People, 144 Ill. 604, 32 N.E. 192, 20 L.R.A. 143, State v. Martin, 30 Or. 108, 110, 47 P. 196, March v. State, 5 Tex.App. 450, 456, and State v. Ellvin, 51 Kan. 784, 33 P. 547, but these cases are all criminal actions in which judgments were rendered in original criminal proceedings for violations of statutes. They are met here by the contention that this is a civil proceeding, and that for this reason it survived the death. In the case In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 458, 54 C.C.A. 622, 632, this court said:

'Proceedings for contempts are of two classes-- those prosecuted to preserve the power and vindicate the dignity of the courts, and to punish for disobedience of their orders, and those instituted to preserve and enforce the rights of private parties to suits, and to compel obedience to orders and decrees made to enforce the rights and administer the remedies to which the court has found them to be entitled. The former are criminal and punitive in their nature, and the government, the courts, and the people are interested in their prosecution. The latter are civil, remedial, and coercive in their nature, and the parties chiefly in interest in their conduct and prosecution are the individuals whose private rights and remedies they were instituted to protect and enforce. Thompson v. Railroad Co., 48 N.J.Eq. 105, 108, 21 A. 182; Hendryx v. Fitzpatrick (C.C.) 19 F. 810; Ex parte Culliford, 8 Barn. & C. 220; Rex. v. Edwards, 9 Barn. & C. 652; People v. Court of Oyer and Terminer, 101 N.Y. 245, 247, 4 N.E. 259, 54 Am.Rep. 691; Phillips v. Welch, 11 Nev. 187, 190; State v. Knight, 3 S.D. 509, 513, 54 N.W. 412, 44 Am.St.Rep. 809; People v. McKane, 78 Hun, 154, 160, 28 N.Y.Supp. 981; 4 Bl.Comm. 285; 7 Am. & Eng.Enc.Law, 68.'

This statement of the law has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324,...