State v. Start
Supreme Court of Iowa
Certiorari to the Des Moines District Court. This was a proceeding for contempt, and arose upon the same facts with the former case of the state against this defendant, ante, 499. In that, the error alleged was in the .order suspending the license of the defendant, as an attorney at law. In this, the error alleged is in the order imposing a fine. The statement of the case need not be repeated ; but such further facts as may be necessary, if any, will be noticed.
Read the full summary
Certiorari to the Des Moines District Court. This was a proceeding for contempt, and arose upon the same facts with the former case of the state against this defendant, ante, 499. In that, the error alleged was in the .order suspending the license of the defendant, as an attorney at law. In this, the error alleged is in the order imposing a fine. The statement of the case need not be repeated ; but such further facts as may be necessary, if any, will be noticed. The errors assigned, are : 1. ■ That the party had no notice of the prr ceedings for contempt. 2. That the court had no jurisdiction…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodward, J.
The objection of a want of notice, is not entirely intelligible. If the defendant means that he actually had not knowledge of the proceedings, the record shows the contrary, for the rule was made and served four days, and he answered it three days before the final order. But,, if he means that ho was not notified to show cause why an attachment should not issue, and to purge himself, it admits of doubt, whether the case is one which entitles him to this. Upon this, we refer to sections 1602 and 1603 of the Code; but as the next objection is fatal, it is unnecessary to discuss the present one.
W…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Beene v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1860
- In re Van AlstineWashington Supreme Court · 1899
- Brownrigg v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1939
- State ex rel. HeroSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1884