A case in which punishment was inflicted by Judge Peck for a criticism published upon one of his decisions led to his impeachment trial before the Senate; and although he was acquitted, a statute was enacted which materially diminished the powers of the Federal courts to punish for contempt." The courts of the United States have power "to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, contempts of their authority: Provided, that such power to punish contempts shall not be construed to extend to any cases except the misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, juror, witness, or other persons, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts." 10 Beyond this the Circuit and District Courts have no such power." The act, just quoted in terms, applies to all courts. Whether it can be held to limit the authority of the Supreme Court, which derives its existence and powers from the Constitution, is doubtful.12 It has been held at circuit that a United States commissioner has no power to punish for contempt." It has been held in Ohio, under a similar statute, that the publication of charges of misconduct against a judge holding court, in a newspaper which the writer had reason to believe would be circulated and read in the court-room, and which was thus circulated and read, is "misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of court or justice." It is a contempt for a public officer 9 U. S. R. S., § 725. 10 U. S. R. S., § 725. R. 774, 780. It has been held that it is a contempt to represent by words 11 Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, and by printed circulars that a sale 510. under an execution is invalid, and 12 Field, J., in Ex parte Robinson, that any one who buys will become 19 Wall. 505, 510. 13 In re Mason, 43 Fed. R. 510; Ex parte Doll, 7 Phila. 595; Ex parte Perkins, 29 Fed. R. 900. 14 Myers v. State, 21 W. L. Bull. 404; S. C., 22 N. E. R. 43. See Cooper v. People, 13 Colo. 337. It has been said that a false report of a decision is, "in its essence, a common-law contempt of court." Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Emery B. T. D. E. Co., 92 Fed. involved in litigation. In re Sowles, 41 Fed. R. 752. The writing, by a State officer, of a letter refusing a license permitting a foreign corporation to do business within the State, which states as his reason for such refusal the conduct by the applicant in certain litigation in a Federal court, is not a contempt. Hillmon v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 79 Fed. R. 749. 19 to attempt to unlawfully dispossess the court, its officers or its records from rooms in which they are located.15 The seizure by a sheriff, under State process, of property in the custody of a deputy marshal after its sale by the marshal, but before its delivery to the buyer, is a contempt of the Federal court.16 Misbehavior in the presence of the court may consist in an assault," or in abusive language addressed to the court 18 or one of its officers, or any person there.20 Similar conduct in an ante-room of the court or so near the court-room as to be heard therein is also punishable as a contempt." It has been said to be a contempt for an attorney to carry a pistol into court. A hearing before a master in chancery or examiner is, for this purpose, treated as a proceeding in court. The cases affecting receivers have been cited in the chapter on Receivers. Proceedings before a grand jury are considered to be in the presence of the court; 25 and an attempt in the hall adjoining the room where a grand jury is in session to bribe a witness summoned before it is a contempt of court. Bribery of a witness in the town where the court is held has been held to be a contempt within the statute." It was held to be a contempt of court to sue in a court of another State a party while there for the purpose of attending the taking of a deposition; and a fine of the expenses of such suit, including the counsel fees therein, 15 In re Lyman, 55 Fed. R. 29. 16 Sabin v. Fogarty, 70 Fed. R. 482. Where a marshal who had replevied goods allowed the plaintiff's agents to put them in a car and to procure a shipping receipt and bill of lading for the same, directed to a stranger to the suit, it was held that the property had passed out of the custody of the Federal court and that a sheriff who levied a State writ of attachment upon them was not guilty of contempt. Animarium Co. v. Bright, 82 Fed. R. 197. 17 Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R. 726; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419; U. S. v. Patterson, 26 Fed. R. 509. 18 Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419. 19 Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419. 20 U. S. v. Emerson, 4 Cranch, C. C. 188; U. S. v. Carter, 3 Cranch, C. C. 423. 21 U. S. v. Emerson, 4 Cranch, C. C. 188. 22 Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R. 726. 23 Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R. 726; U. S. v. Anonymous, 21 Fed. R. 761. 24 See § 249. 25 Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267. 26 Ibid. 27 In re Brule, 71 Fed. R. 943. For a case where it was held, that a man was guilty of contempt for failing to attend in obedience to a subpoena and to present to the court the facts which excused him from attendance; see Carman v. Emerson (C. C. A.), 71 Fed. R. 264. was imposed upon the party who brought it.28 It has been said to be a contempt of court to bring before it a collusive suit.29 An officer of the court may be punished by attachment for his misbehavior in office after his term of office has expired by resignation or otherwise.30 An attorney" or other officer 32 of the court may be thus compelled to pay to a person named in the order money received by him in his official capacity. Where, however, there is room for a reasonable doubt as to how much is due from the officer, the court will usually refuse to proceed against him summarily, and require the complaining party to begin a suit.33 A juror has been punished for contempt because he had talked about the case in violation of the court's direction to the contrary. It is a contempt of court for a person to assist another, whether acting as the latter's agent or otherwise, in committing an act which has been forbidden to himself in an injunction issued against him individually.35 A person not a party to the suit may be punished for a violation of an injunction against a corporation when he is a controlling member of the same and controlled part of the litigation for the defense. A person not a party to the suit 36 28 Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 17, 45-47. But see Blight v. Fisher, Pet. C. C. 41. 29 Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Cleveland v. Chamberlain, 1 Black, 419. 30 The Laurens, 1 Abb. Adm. 508. 31 In re Paschal, 10 Wall. 483; Jeffries v. Laurie, 27 Fed. R. 195. 32 Re Pitman, 1 Curt. 186; Bagley v. Yates, 3 McLean, 465; The Laurens, 1 Abb. Adm. 508. defendant corporation which, when enjoined from selling a certain cordial in certain bottles with a particular label, sold its entire stock of cordials with such bottles and labels to a third person, under an arrangement that he would fill all orders for the cordial which the defendant should receive, was guilty of contempt; although it did not share in the profits of such sales, and although it acted under advice of counsel. Société 33 See In re Paschall, 10 Wall. 483; Anonyme v. Western Distilling Co., U. S. v. Mann, 2 Brock. 9. 34 Re May, 1 Fed. R. 737; U. S. v. Devaughan, 3 Cranch, C. C. 84. 35 Dadirrian v. Gullian, 79 Fed. R. 784. A person enjoined from the infringement of a patent was held to commit a contempt by contributing to a fund to defray the expenses of another who was contesting the validity of a patent. Bate Ref. Co. v. Gillett, 30 Fed. R. 683. It has been held: that a 42 Fed. R. 96. It was held that a defendant had violated an injunction against his "making, using or vending for use" certain specified articles, where, after the injunction, he sold such an article previously manufactured. A. B. Dick Co. v. Wickelman, 89 Fed. R. 95. 36 Stahl v. Ertel, 62 Fed. R. 920; American Const. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. R. 937. who assists a party in violating an injunction may be punished for a contempt.37 A person is not relieved from punishment for contempt because he acted in good faith under the advice of counsel that he was not infringing the court's order; 38 but such advice may be considered in mitigation of the damages.39 And if the question as to whether he is in contempt is doubtful, the court will not punish him.40 A violation of an order may be punished when it was the result of negligence, but not wilful disobedience."1 A court has no jurisdiction to punish for contempt an act not forbidden at the time of its commission; nor can it accomplish such a result by the entry of an order nunc pro tunc as of a date prior to the commission of the act," except in a case where the judge has announced orally from the bench a decision that an injunction issue, when the order may be entered as of the date of such decision, and a subsequent act may be punished accordingly, even if committed before the formal entry of the order. It has been held that a court has no jurisdiction to punish as a contempt a violation of an oral stipulation made in open court." A domestic or foreign corporation, as well as an individual, may be fined for a contempt. A recent statute allows any Circuit Court or judge of the United States to punish as for a contempt or otherwise the violation of an injunction granted by any Circuit Court of the United States or judge thereof restraining and enjoining the performance or representation of a dramatic or musical composition." Disobedience to a subpoena issued by a Circuit Court of one district ordering a witness to appear and testify before a master appointed to take testimony therein by the Circuit Court 37 Ex parte Lennon, 64 Fed. R. 320; S. C., 166 U. S. 548. 38 Atlantic G. P. Co. v. Dittman P. Mfg. Co., 9 Fed. R. 316; Ulman v. Ritter, 72 Fed. R. 1000. 39 Ulman v. Ritter, 72 Fed. R. 1000 40 California P. Co. v. Molitor, 113. U. S. 609; Onderdonk v. Fanning, 2 Fed. R. 568; Lilienthal v. Wallach, 37 Fed. R. 241; Truax v. Detweiler, 46 Fed. R. 117. 41 Indianapolis Water Co. v. American Strawboard Co., 75 Fed. R. 972. 42 Ex parte Buskirk (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 14. 43 Ibid.; Kimpton v. Eve, 2 Ves. & B. 349; Anon., 3 Atk. 567; James v. Downs, 18 Ves. 522; Vansandan v. Rose, 2 Jac. & W. 264; Koehler v. Farmers' & D. Nat. Bank, 6 N. Y. Supp. 470. 44 Ex parte Buskirk (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. R. 14, 20. 45 U. S. v. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 6 Fed. R. 237. 46 29 St. at. L. 482. of another district is punishable by the court which issued the subpoena.47 § 342. Notice of application for attachment.- The rules provide that if a decree be for the performance of a specific act, other than the payment of money, it must prescribe the time within which the act shall be done, "of which the defendant shall be bound without further service to take notice;" and that, "except in cases where personal or other notice is specially required or directed," an entry of an order in the orderbook is sufficient notice thereof to the parties to the suit. A party who has actual knowledge of the issue of an injunction may be punished for disobedience to the same, although he has not been served with a copy of the writ or order. It is, however, the safer practice to make personal service of a certified copy of a decree or order, disobedience to which it is desired to punish by an attachment. In case of disobedience to a decree for the performance of a specific act, other than the payment of money, the rules direct the issue of an attachment ex parte by the clerk, upon the filing of an affidavit that the act has not been performed within the required time." It is, however, the usual practice to give notice to the delinquent, of an application for an attachment, either by an order to show cause or otherwise. An attachment may be issued at the request of a person not a party to the cause in whose favor an order has been made, or against a person not a party to the cause against whom obedience to an order can be enforced." Notice of the application, when required, should be served personally upon 47 In re Spofford, 62 Fed. R. 443. § 342. Equity Rule 8. 2 Equity Rule 4. Jacksonville, T. & K. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. 3 Ex parte Lennon, 64 Fed. R. 320; days' notice. Where the notice named S. C., 166 U. S. 548. 4 In re Cary, 10 Fed. R. 622; In re Lloyd, 10 Beav. 451. But see Re Feeny, 1 Hask. 304; s. c., 4 N. B. R. [70] 233; Skip v. Harwood, 3 Atk. 564; Hearn v. Tenant, 14 Ves. 136; People v. Brower, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 405. 5 Rule 8. 6 Worcester v. Truman, 1 McLean, 483; Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63. Six days' notice has been held to be reasonable. American Const. Co. v. a defendant corporation "and its officers" as the objects of the contempt proceedings, without specifying the individual officers, it was held that any officer served with the notice might be attached. American Const. Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. R. 937. 7 Equity Rule 10. See King v. McLean Asylum of M. G. Hospital (C. C. A.), 64 Fed. R. 325. |