EQUITY- CONTEMPTS - PURGATION BY SWORN ANSWER - DOCTRINE OF VARIANCE

Authors

Abstract

At the suit of X Traction Company defendants had been enjoined from operating busses along streets upon which plaintiff operated its cars. The latter .filed an information in the name of the State charging the defendants with wilful violation of the restraining order, and moved for an attachment for contempt, and for the infliction of "such penalties as are or may be necessary to compel observance." Defendants filed motions to discharge, and also answers for the purpose of purging themselves of the alleged contempt. Upon trial, at which evidence was received, the court found defendants guilty, and levied fines. Defendants appealed when their motion for a new trial was overruled. Held (inter alia), " . . . if the proceeding . . . be considered one in criminal contempt, the appellants by their answers purged themselves of all contempt and should have been discharged; and . . . if the proceeding be considered one of civil contempt, then the court imposed an unauthorized penalty . . . ," one which would be proper only in a criminal proceeding. Denny v. State, (Ind. 1932) 182 N. E. 313 at 319.

Recommended Citation

EQUITY- CONTEMPTS - PURGATION BY SWORN ANSWER - DOCTRINE OF VARIANCE, 31 Mich. L. Rev. 1161 (1933).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol31/iss8/19