Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Matter of Christensen Engineering Co.

Matter of Christensen Eng’g Co., 194 U.S. 458 (1904)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1904-05-31
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • explaining adjudications of criminal contempt appealable prior to final judgment

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Matter of Christensen Engineering Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
83 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Civil Procedure — Contempt — Reviewability of Interlocutory Orders When an order imposing a fine for violation of an injunction is substantially one to reimburse the party injured by the disobedience, it is to be regarded, although entered in a contempt proceeding, as merely an interlocutory order reviewable only on appeal from the final decree. 194 U.S. 458
  2. Civil Procedure — Contempt — Reviewability of Interlocutory Orders Where a fine for violation of an injunction is payable to the United States and is clearly punitive and in vindication of the authority of the court, the punitive character dominates the proceeding and fixes its nature, rendering the order reviewable by the Circuit Court of Appeals on writ of error. 194 U.S. 458
  3. Civil Procedure — Mandamus Where the Circuit Court of Appeals declines to take jurisdiction of a writ of error that is properly justified, mandamus will issue from the Supreme Court directing it to take jurisdiction. 194 U.S. 458
MATTER OF CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING CO.,194 U.S. 458(1904)
24 S.Ct. 729
MATTER OF CHRISTENSEN ENGINEERING COMPANY.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. 15, Original.
Submitted April 25, 1904.
Decided May 31, 1904.
When an order imposing a fine for violation of an injunction is substantially one to reimburse the party injured by the disobedience, although called one in a contempt proceeding, it is to be regarded as merely an interlocutory order, and to be reviewed only on appeal from the final decree. Where, however, the fine is payable to the United States and is clearly punitive and in vindication of the authority of the court, it dominates the proceeding and is reviewable by the Circuit Court of Appeals on writ of error,Bessettev.W.B. Conkey Co.,194 U.S. 324, and the court should take jurisdiction and in case of its refusal mandamus will issue from this court directing it so to do.
THIS is a petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to reinstate and
take jurisdiction of a writ of error filed by the petitioner in
that court, by which it sought to have reviewed an order of the
Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York adjudging the
petitioner guilty of contempt. The facts are, that on August 13,
1900, the Westinghouse Airbrake Company filed in the Circuit
Court its bill of complaint, alleging the ownership of certain
letters patent, an infringement by this petitioner, and praying
an injunction restraining such infringement and an accounting of
profits and damages. A preliminary injunction was ordered on
October 18, 1901. On February 21, 1903, the petitioner was
adjudged guilty of contempt in disobeying that injunction, and
ordered to pay a fine of $1,000, one-half to the United States
and the other half to the complainant. On March 23, 1903, a writ
of error to revise this order was allowed by the Circuit Court,
and a full transcript of the proceedings in that court duly
certified to the Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 18, 1903, the
Circuit Court entered a decree sustaining the validity of the
patent,
Page 459
directing a permanent injunction and an accounting of profits and
damages. On April 16, 1903, an appeal was taken from this decree.
A hearing on the writ of error was had before the Circuit Court
of Appeals and, on February 13, 1904, that court dismissed the
writ of error.
Mr. W.A. Jennerfor petitioner.Mr. Frederic H. Bettsfor respondent.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The examination inBessettev.W.B. Conkey Company,194 U.S. 324, just decided, of the right of review in contempt cases precludes the necessity of extended discussion.

In that case Bessette was not a party to the suit, and the controversy had been settled by a final decree, from which, so far as appeared, no appeal had been taken. He was found guilty of contempt of court, and a fine of $250 imposed, payable to the United States, with costs.

In this case the Christensen Engineering Company was a party. The contempt was disobedience of a preliminary injunction and the judgment in contempt was intermediate the preliminary injunction and the decree making it permanent. The fine was payable, one-half to the United States, and the other half to the complainant.

The distinction between a proceeding in which a fine is imposed by way of compensation to the party injured by the disobedience, and where it is by way of punishment for an act done in contempt of the power and authority of the court, is pointed out inBessette'scase, and disclosed by some of the cases referred to in the opinion.

InNew Orleansv.Steamship Company, 20 Wall. 387, the act in contempt was by one not then a party to the suit. No order was entered against him until the final decree in the case,Page 460and then he was punished for the act of disobedience, purely as an act of a criminal nature, and without compensation to the plaintiff in whose favor the injunction was originally ordered. No review under the then existing law was allowable. InHayesv.Fischer,102 U.S. 121, the contempt proceeding was remedial and compensatory, and the entire amount of the fine was ordered paid to the plaintiff in reimbursement. It was held that, if the remedial feature was alone to be considered, and the proceeding regarded as a part of the suit, it could not be brought to this court by writ of error, but could only be corrected on appeal from the final decree; if to be regarded as a criminal action, then it was one of which this court had no jurisdiction, either by writ of error or appeal. InEx parte Debs et al.,159 U.S. 251, there was nothing of a remedial or compensatory nature. No fine was imposed, but only a sentence of imprisonment. This court had no jurisdiction of a writ of error in such a case. And seeO'Nealv.United States,190 U.S. 36. InWordenv.Searls,121 U.S. 14, the proceeding was remedial and compensatory, in that for violations of a preliminary injunction the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff $250 "as a fine for said violation," by one order, and, by another order, to pay a fine of $1,182 to the clerk, to be paid over by him to the plaintiff for "damages and costs," the $1,182 being made up of $682 profits made by the infringement, and $500 expenses of plaintiff in the contempt proceedings. These interlocutory orders were reviewed by this court on appeal from the final decree, and as that decree was reversed, the orders were also set aside, this being done "without prejudice to the power and right of the Circuit Court to punish the contempt referred to in those orders, by a proper proceeding." It was also said "that, though the proceedings were nominally those of contempt, they were really proceedings to award damages to the plaintiff, and to reimburse to him his expenses."

These authorities show that when an order imposing a fine for violation of an injunction is substantially one to reimbursePage 461the party injured by the disobedience, although called one in a contempt proceeding, it is to be regarded as merely an interlocutory order, and to be reviewed only on appeal from the final decree.

In the present case, the fine payable to the United States was clearly punitive and in vindication of the authority of the court, and, we think, as such it dominates the proceeding and fixes its character. Considered in that aspect, the writ of error was justified, and the Circuit Court of Appeals should have taken jurisdiction.Petitioner entitled to mandamus.