Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Hall v. Hall

Utah Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1947No. 7000Published

1ConcurrenceWade, Justice

I concur on the ground that it was not a contempt of court for the defendant to fail to pay more than $65 per month under the facts and circumstances of this case. Since the defendant was fined and given a jail sentence, which was suspended in case the fine was paid within a given time, the object was to punish him for an indignity toward the court and not to coerce payment of the judgment. Had the latter been the object the court would have ordered him to pay all or a part of the judgment, and committed him to jail until he complied with the order. I do not think that under the facts and…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Foreman v. ForemanUtah Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Foreman v. ForemanUtah Supreme Court · 1947

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API