Page 583

• Format: Text
• Language: unknown
• Published: North Dakota State Library
• Subjects: Politics & Government; Arctic; Bergen; Ewing; Hicks; Judah; Lied; Paige; Paterson; Steele; Sullivan; Vanderheyden
• Online Access: http://cdm16921.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16921coll3/id/16179

‘S40 NORTH DAKOTA REPORTS Rep. 438; In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 661, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 677; Boston Beer Co. v. Mass., 97 U. S. 25, 24 L. Ed. 989; Bartmeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129, 21 L. Ed. 929; U. S. v. Distillery No. 28, 6_ Biss. 484; The Luminary, 8 Wheat. 407, 5 L. Ed. 647; Henderson’: Distilled Spirits, .14 Wall. 44, 20 L. Ed. 815. The disobedience of any order, judgment or decree of a court ‘-having jurisdiction to issue it, is a contempt of court, however erro neous or improvident the issuing of it may have been. In re Cohen, 5 Cal. 594; Tilton v. Paterson, 18 Abb. Pr. 245; Rapalje on Con Itempt, 19. If a court having jurisdiction should issue an improper order, it is obligatory until reversed by an appellate court, and parties may be punished for disobedience or resistance to such order. Sullivan v. Judah, 4 Paige 442; Moat v. Halbein, 2 Edw. (Ch.) 188; Peo -ple v. Bergen, 53 N. Y. 404; Franklin v. Smith, 49 Ga. 112; Smith v. Fitch, 1 Clark (N. Y.) 265; Rutherford v. Metcalf, 5 Hayw. .58 (Tenn.). If the order is void for want of jurisdiction, disobedience of it "is not contempt of court. Harris v. Haines, 35 Mich. 138; People v. Sturdevant, 9 N. Y. 263. - VVhoever unlawfully interferes with property or officers and agents of the court in possession and management of it, are guilty of contempt of court. In re Higgins, 27 Fed. 443. An erroneous order must be questioned by direct proceedings to review it and not by disobedience. Forest v. Price, 52 N. J. Eq. 16; Arctic Fire Ins. Co. v. Hicks, 7 Abbott’s Pr. 204; People v. Grant, 13 Civ. Proc. R. 305. One having actual notice of an injunction will be bound thereby although the same is not served upon him. Bull v. Thomas, 3 Edw. (Ch.) N. Y. 236; Ewing v. Johnson, 34 How. Pr. 202; Wattle v. Vanderheyden, 8 Paige 45; Ramstock v. Roth, 18 Wis. 522; Hull v. Thomas, 3 Edw. 236; Thebault v. Canova, 11 Fla. 143. Appearing and answeriiig as to the merits on a charge of con tempt will prevent an attack from lack of jurisdiction of the per son on a decision that the party is in contempt. Ex parte Kecler, 31 Law. Rep. An. 678; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth Co. Dist., 134 U. S. 31, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 14 .Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Callan v. Wilson, 127 U. S. 540, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1301; In re Doolittle, 23 lied. 544; Albartson v. The 1’. I. Nevins, -48 Fed. 927