In re Cohen

California Supreme Court Jul 1, 1855Published

Before: Terry

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that it lacks authority under a writ of habeas corpus to review the merits of a contempt order issued by a District Court, provided the District Court had jurisdiction to issue the order. Because the petitioners appeared and contested the rule to show cause, the District Court acquired jurisdiction over their persons, rendering the contempt proceedings valid for the purposes of this inquiry.

Issues

Whether a court may review the merits of a contempt order issued by a District Court under a writ of habeas corpus.
Whether the District Court had jurisdiction over the petitioners to issue an order requiring them to deliver property to a receiver.

Disposition. Writ discharged; prisoners remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the judgments and orders of Courts, or Judges, on the subject of contempts, are, by our statutes, declared to be final and conclusive; and it has been established by judicial decisions, that under the writ of habeas corpus we cannot review”

“When they appeared and filed their answer to this rule, the Court acquired full jurisdiction over their persons, as well as the subject matter.”

Synopsis

The judgments and orders of Courts or Judges on the subject of contempts, are by our statutes declared to be final and conclusive. Under the writ of Habeas Corpus, this Court cannot review the orders of another Court in such cases.

The District Courts have jurisdiction to punish for contempts of their process, and to issue such writs as are necessary to the exercise of that jurisdiction.

Contempt is defined by the statute to be the disobedience or resistance of a lawful order of a Court or Judge ; and if a Court, having jurisdiction, should issue an erroneous order, it is obligatory, until reversed by an appellate Court, and a disobedience of it is a contempt.

Courts of equity have the power to appoint receivers, and to order them to take possession of the property in controversy, whether in the immediate possession of the defendant or his agents ; and in proper cases they can also order the defendants’ agents or employees, although not parties to the record, to deliver the specific property to the receiver.

The District Court caused the parties, C. and J., to be served with a rule to show cause why they should not be ordered to deliver certain property in their possession to the receiver, appointed in a case to which they were not parties; and in obedience to the rule, they appeared and contested the matter before the Court. Held, that when they appeared and filed their answer to this rule, the Court acquired full jurisdiction over their persons as well as the subject matter.

Terry, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Murray, C. J., concurred.

The return to the writ of habeas corpus shows, that Cohen and Jones are in custody under an attachment, issued out of the Fourth District Court, commanding the Sheriff to have said parties before said Court, to answer touching a certain contempt, which is alleged they had committed in refusing to obey a certain order of Court, (made in the case of Alvin Adams v. I. C. Woods and D. H. Haskell, pending in said Court, which order commanded Roman, Cohen, and Jones, to deliver to a Receiver, appointed by said Court, certain personal chattels therein specified, belonging to the firm of Adams & Co.

[495]The judgments and orders of Courts, or Judges, on the subject of contempts, are, by our statutes, declared to be final and conclusive; and it has been established by judicial decisions, that under the writ of habeas corpus we cannot review the orders of another Court in such cases.

Our investigation must be confined to the single point of jurisdiction. If the Court had power to make the order, we cannot inquire whether the case under consideration is a proper one for the exercise of that power. It cannot be doubted, that the District Courts have jurisdiction to punish for contempts of their process, and to issue such writs as are necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction.

But it is contended, on the part of petitioners, that the order of the District Court, for the disobedience of which, they are charged with contempt, was unlawful and void; because, the Court had no jurisdiction of the persons of petitioners, who are strangers to the proceedings, in which such order was made, and the order not being lawful, a disobedience of it is not a contempt.

Contempt is defined by our statute to be the disobedience or resistance of a lawful order of a Court or Judge. What is a lawful order, within the meaning of this Act ? Strictly speaking, every erroneous order or judgment of a Court, is unlawful, and for that reason, may be reversed on appeal.

But it will not be contended, that therefore parties may not be punished for resistance or disobedience to such orders, or that the officer executing final process, issued on an erroneous judgment, would make himself liable as a trespasser.

In the examination of this question, we should be careful to distinguish between the erroneous exercise of a power conferred by law, and the usurpation of power. If the District Court has jurisdiction, under any circumstances to make an order, requiring persons not parties to the record to deliver property to the officer of the Court, the issuance of such order in an improper case would be error certainly, which an appellate Court would correct, but would not be an usurpation of power or an excess of jurisdiction.

In re Cohen

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief