Frowley v. Superior Court of Modoc

California Supreme Court Aug 25, 1910 No. S.F. No. 5333.Published

Before: Lorigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the contempt judgment was void because the underlying affidavits failed to allege that the petitioner furnished the liquor or had notice of the court's order, and such jurisdictional defects cannot be cured by subsequent evidence or stipulations.

Issues

Whether the affidavits were sufficient to establish jurisdiction for a constructive contempt proceeding.
Whether the failure to allege knowledge of the court order in the affidavits is a fatal jurisdictional defect.
Whether a post-judgment stipulation can cure jurisdictional defects in the original contempt affidavits.

Disposition. annulled

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The affidavit constitutes the complaint and unless it contains a statement of facts which show that a contempt has been committed, the court is without jurisdiction to proceed in the matter”

“The petitioner, Frowley, Jr., could not be adjudged guilty of contempt unless he had knowledge of the order.”

Synopsis

WRIT OF REVIEW to annul a judgment of the Superior Court of Modoc County in contempt proceedings. John E. Raker, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

LORIGAN, J.

This is a proceeding in

certiorari

to review a judgment of the superior court adjudging the petitioner, Thomas Frowley, Jr., guilty of contempt of court and punishing him therefor, and also imposing certain duties and obligations upon the other petitioner, Thomas Frowley, with reference to .said Thomas Frowley, Jr., his son.

The contempt with which the petitioner, Thomas Frowley,

[222]

Jr., was charged, consisted of the alleged violation of an order made by the superior court of Modoc County, sitting as a juvenile court, in the matter of one James Forrest, a minor. In that matter a judgment was entered placing said James Forrest on probation, under the juvenile act, until he should attain his majority, and it was further provided in said judgment that it “should be a contempt of court for any person to furnish the said James Forrest or to cause to be furnished to him any intoxicating liquor.”

It was for the alleged violation of the order against furnishing liquor to said James Forrest, while still on probation, that the contempt proceeding against the petitioner, Thomas Frowley, Jr., was instituted. After a hearing he was adjudged guilty of contempt for violating said order and required to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty dollars, payable at the rate of five dollars a month until paid. It was further ordered that the other petitioner herein, the father of Thomas Frowley, Jr., should take control of him, in a probationary way, and was charged with certain duties relative to his conduct, and required to report to the court monthly concerning his behavior.

In this present proceeding in

certiorari

various attacks are made on the validity of the contempt proceedings, but we think it only necessary to examine a couple of them.

It is familiar law that in proceedings for constructive con-tempts of court, that is, contempts committed without the presence of the court, and such as the petitioner Frowley, Jr., is claimed to have committed, the affidavit which is made the basis for the proceeding should show upon its face the acts which constitute a contempt. The affidavit constitutes the complaint and unless it contains a statement of facts which show that a contempt has been committed, the court is without jurisdiction to proceed in the matter, and any judgment of contempt based thereon is void, and will be so declared upon

Frowley v. Superior Court of Modoc

AI Brief

Synopsis

LORIGAN, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief