William Doyle v. London Guarantee Accident Company, Limited
Decision Date | 25 February 1907 |
Docket Number | No. 155,155 |
Parties | WILLIAM J. DOYLE, and James G. Doak, Trading as Doyle & Doak, v. LONDON GUARANTEE & ACCIDENT COMPANY, LIMITED |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. E. Clinton Rhoads and John C. Bell for Doyle et al.
[Argument of Counsel from page 599 intentionally omitted] Mr. Thomas Raeburn White for the London Guarantee & Accident Company.
[Argument of Counsel from page 599 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:
This case is here upon certificate from the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit. From the facts stated it appears that William J. Doyle and James G. Doak were adjudged guilty of contempt of court in the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. After the bringing of the action, upon the petition of the London Guarantee & Accident Company, Limited, the plaintiff below, the court made the following order:
'And now, June 25th, 1904, the court orders the defendants to produce, within twenty days, in the office of the clerk of said court, their pay sheets, time books, cash books, and all other books of original entry which contain information as to the amount of compensation paid to employees of themselves or of their subcontractors or of any other persons contemplated in the contracts upon which suit is brought in this case during the period of said contracts, as set forth in the petition filed.'
After that order was made the certificate recites:
'Thereafter the plaintiff presented to the court a petition alleging disobedience by the defendants of the above order and praying that an attachment issue against them for contempt of court. Thereupon the court granted a rule upon the defendants to show cause why an attachment should not issue against them for contempt of court by reason of their violation and disobedience of said order. To this rule the defendants filed an answer under oath, denying intentional noncompliance with said order, and stating that they were not able to produce all the books and papers called for, because, upon a thorough search, the absent ones could not be found, and averring their belief that they were accidentally lost or by mistake were destroyed at a time when alterations were made in their office and a removal of its contents to another place occurred. Subsequently, to wit, on January 3d, 1905, upon the hearing of the rule, the court gave and entered judgment that the 'defendants are guilty of contempt in disobeying the order referred to,' and further adjudged as follows:
A writ of error was allowed to the circuit court of appeals. Upon the facts stated the following question was certified to this court:
'Has the circuit court of appeals jurisdiction upon the writ of error sued out by the defendants to review the above-recited judgment of January 5th, 1905, adjudging that the defendants are guilty of contempt of court in disobeying the above-recited order of court of June 25th, 1904, and imposing upon the defendants a fine of $250.00 on the specified conditions and terms?'
Cases involving the right to review orders of the Federal courts in matters of contempt have been so recently before this court that an extended discussion of the principles involved is unnecessary. Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. 194 U. S. 324, 48 L. ed. 997, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 665; Re Christensen Engineering Co. 194 U. S. 458, 48 L. ed. 1072, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 729; Alexander v. United States, 201 U. S. 117, 50 L. ed. 686, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 356.
In Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. supra, a question was certified here from the circuit court of appeals of the seventh circuit, involving the jurisdiction of that court to review an order in a contempt proceeding finding the petitioner guilty of contempt for violation of an order of the circuit court, and imposing a fine. In that case the subject underwent a full examination and the previous cases in this court were cited and reviewed. As a result of those decisions we deem it settled that an order punishing for contempt, made in the progress of the case, when not in the nature of an order in a criminal proceeding, is regarded as interlocutory, and to be reviewed only upon appeal from a final decree in the case.
Re Christensen Engineering Co. supra. In Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. supra, it was pointed out that this court had no jurisdiction to review judgments in contempt proceedings criminal in their nature, under the power to punish for contempt defined by Congress (1 Stat. at L. 83, chap. 20) and limited by the act of March 2, 1831. 4 Stat. at L. 487, chap. 99, Rev. Stat. § 725, U. S. Comp Stat. 1901, p. 583.
The right to review a judgment in a contempt proceeding in the circuit court of appeals was derived from the circuit court of appeals act, § 6 [ ], of which Mr. Justice Brewer, speaking for the court in the Bessette case said:
And again, in the same case, it is said:
'As, therefore, the ground upon which a review by this court of a final decision in contempt cases was denied no longer exists, the decisions themselves cease to have controlling authority, and whether the circuit courts of appeals have authority to review proceedings in contempt in the district and circuit courts depends upon the question whether such proceedings are criminal cases.'
It therefore appears that the only right of review given to the circuit court of appeals in contempt proceedings is derived from the act giving that court such right in criminal cases. In the course of the discussion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clay v. Waters
... ... SANBORN, Circuit Judge, and RINER and WILLIAM H. MUNGER, ... District Judges ... [178 F ... W. B. Conkey ... Company, 194 U.S. 324, 328, 24 Sup.Ct. 665, 666 (48 ... by appeal from the decree only. Doyle v. London Guarantee ... Company, 204 U.S. 599, ... ...
-
Merchants' Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade of City of Chicago
... ... the Merchants' Stock & Grain Company, Francis J. Miner, ... Patrick A. Stephens, and ... appeal therefrom. Doyle v. London Guarantee Co., 204 ... U.S. 599, 27 ... there said to that effect must be limited by the ... facts and law of that case ... ...
-
Hicks Feiock v. Feiock
...49 S.Ct. 173, 73 L.Ed. 419 (1929); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 45 S.Ct. 332, 69 L.Ed. 527 (1925); Doyle v. London Guarantee Co., 204 U.S. 599, 27 S.Ct. 313, 51 L.Ed. 641 (1907); In re Christensen Engineering Co., 194 U.S. 458, 24 S.Ct. 729, 48 L.Ed. 1072 (1904); Bessette v. W.B. Conkey ......
-
United States v. United Mine Workers of America Same v. Lewis, John United Mine Workers of America v. United States Lewis, John v. Same United Mine Workers of America v. Same
...Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441, 445, 31 S.Ct. 492, 498, 499, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 874. See also Doyle v. London Guaranty & Accident Co., 204 U.S. 599, 607, 27 S.Ct. 313, 315, 51 L.Ed. 641. The District Court did not enter a conditional decree here. But this Court has modified the District ......