Legal Opinion · Concurrence

In re Tyler

California Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1884Published

Application for a writ of habeas corpus. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Concurrence

Morrison, C. J., Myrick, J., and McKiNstry, J., concurring.

We are of opinion that the petitioner, in sending the letter set forth in the return (containing as it did threatening and insulting language), was guilty of contempt, and that he thereby subjected himself to punishment. We are also of opinion that the court had power to enforce the payment of the fine imposed, by the method adopted by it. (Ex parte Crittenden, 63 Cal. 534.)

We therefore concur in the judgment.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. City & County of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1883