Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Hayes v. Fischer

Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U.S. 121 (Supreme Court of the United States 1880)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1880-11-08
Topic
general

Mr. Chief Justíce W41TE delivered the opinion of the court. Fischer, the defendant in error, brought a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to restrain Hayes, the plaintiff in error, from using a certain patented device. In this suit an interlocutory injunction was granted. Complaint having been made .against Hayes for a violation of this injunction, proceedings were instituted against him for contempt, which resulted in an' order by the court that he pay the clerk $l,389i99 as a fine, and that he stand committed until the order was obeyéd.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hayes v. Fischer. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
49 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction An interlocutory order entered in an equity suit cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court on writ of error; errors in equity suits may be corrected only on appeal, and only after a final decree.
  2. General — Contempt — Review of Contempt Proceedings A proceeding for contempt that is independent of and separate from the original suit cannot be re-examined by the Supreme Court either by writ of error or by appeal.
  3. Civil Procedure — Appellate Jurisdiction Where an order imposing a fine for violation of an injunction is interlocutory and part of the proceedings in the original equity suit, it is not reviewable on writ of error, and the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.
Mr. Chief Justíce W41TE

delivered the opinion of the court.

Fischer, the defendant in error, brought a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to restrain Hayes, the plaintiff in error, from using a certain patented device. In this suit an interlocutory injunction was granted. Complaint having been made .against Hayes for a violation of this injunction, proceedings were instituted against him for contempt, which resulted in an' order by the court that he pay the clerk $l,389i99 as a fine, and that he stand committed until the order was obeyéd. To reverse this order, Hayes sued out this writ of error, which Fischer now moves to dismiss, on the ground that such proceedings in the Circuit Court cannot be re-examined here.

If the order complained of is to be treated as part of what was done in the original suit, it cannot be brought here for review by writ. óf error. Errors in equity suits can only be corrected in this court on appeal, and that after a final.decree. This order, if part of the proceedings’ in the suit, was interlocutory only.

If the proceeding below, being for contempt, was independent of and separate from the original suit, it cannot be re-examined here either by writ of error or appeal. This was decided more than fifty years ago in Ex parte Kearney (7 Wheat. 38), and the rule, then established was followed as late as New Orleans v. Steamship Company, 20 Wall. 387.

It follows that we have no jurisdiction.

Motion granted.