Bakeman v. Superior Court (1918) · DecisionDepot

Bakeman v. Superior Court

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jul 22, 1918 No. Civ. No. 2699.Published

Before: Shaw

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that contempt orders are void and unenforceable if they fail to include a finding that the party had the ability to comply with the underlying court order, and that a party cannot be held in contempt for failing to appear personally at a show-cause hearing.

Issues

Whether a party can be held in contempt for failing to appear in person at a show-cause hearing.
Whether an order adjudging a party in contempt is valid without a finding that the party had the ability to comply with the court's directive.

Disposition. Peremptory writ of prohibition issued.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the first order made on March 11th, adjudging petitioner guilty of contempt for failing to appear in person, was, upon the authorities cited, unwarranted and in excess of the jurisdiction of the court.”

“An order adjudging one guilty of contempt for failure to perform an act directed, by the court is void as a basis for the imposition of punishment, unless it appears therefrom that it is within the power of such person to perform the act.”

Synopsis

APPLICATION originally made to the District Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District for a writ of prohibition to restrain the Superior Court from pronouncing judgment for contempt.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SHAW, J.

Prohibition. It appears from the petition and the return made in response to the alternative writ issued herein that in an action wherein J. F. Brumund was plaintiff and petitioner and others were defendants, the court made an order requiring petitioner, within the time therein

[786]

specified after service of the same, to deliver to the clerk of the court certain promissory notes and stock certificates, the right to the possession of which was claimed by plaintiff, the same to be held by the clerk pending further orders of the court.

Upon an affidavit filed setting forth the fact of the making of the order, due service thereof, and petitioner’s neglect to comply therewith, she was, by an order of court made on February 9, 1918, cited to appear on the eleventh day of March, 1918, and show cause why she should not be adjudged guilty of contempt for disobedience of the order, which citation was duly served on February 15, 1918.

On March 11, 1918, the matter coming on for hearing, petitioner, in obedience to the order appeared, not in person, but by attorney, and filed an affidavit wherein she averred that prior to the commencement of the action she had transferred the notes and stock to a resident of San Francisco, since which time she had had no control thereof, and that petitioner was and at all times had been without power to comply with the order of the court. At this hearing no evidence, other than petitioner’s affidavit showing her inability to comply with the order, was received. Nevertheless, the court made an order as follows: “In matter of order of Jean H. Bakeman to appear and show cause

in re

contempt, which comes on now to' be heard, said defendant not being present in court is adjudged in contempt and a bench warrant is ordered to issue returnable forthwith.”

Thereafter, on April 10th, petitioner appeared in court personally with her counsel; whereupon the court continued the hearing of said contempt proceedings to the twelfth day of April, 1918, at which time the court made an order as follows: “In the matter of order to show cause

in re

Bakeman v. Superior Court

AI Brief

Synopsis

SHAW, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief