Hanley v. Pacific Live Stock Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Dis.-trict of Oregon; Charles E. Wolverton, Judge. Suit by the Pacific Dive Stock Company against William Hanley and others. From a decree adjudging plaintiff guilty of contempt in violating a prior decree of the court, defendant Hanley appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Dis.-trict of Oregon; Charles E. Wolverton, Judge. Suit by the Pacific Dive Stock Company against William Hanley and others. From a decree adjudging plaintiff guilty of contempt in violating a prior decree of the court, defendant Hanley appeals. The appellant appeals from a decree of the District Court adjudging him guilty of contempt of that court in violating its prior decree rendered on December 10, 1901, in a suit brought by the appellee the Pacific Live Stock Company, a corporation, against the appellant herein, and other…
1Opinion of the CourtGilbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). [1] The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt, being punitive and not compensatory, cannot be reviewed in this court by appeal, but must be brought here by writ of error. We find no merit in the motion. The judgment is not primarily punitive in its nature, but it is a judgment in a civil and remedial proceeding, instituted to protect and enforce private rights, and to that end to compel obedience of the decree of the court. It is brought for the violation of the injunction of a final…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Worden v. SearlsSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- California Artificial Stone Paving Co. v. MolitorSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Matter of Christensen Engineering Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Clay v. WatersCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Fox v. Capital Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1938
- Lineker v. DillonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1921
- In Re Rights to Use of Waters of Silvies RiverOregon Supreme Court · 1924
- Heikkila v. BarberDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1958
- Kansas City Power & Light Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1943
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.