Boon v. McGucken
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from special term, Oneida county. Motion by Lorenzo Boon and another that Daniel McGucken and others be punished for contempt. An order was accordingly made on the 17th day of September, 1892, adjudging defendants guilty, and fining them $200 apiece and $15 costs each, and requiring the fines to be paid to the clerk of Oneida county, and the costs and disbursements to be paid to plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. Reversed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from special term, Oneida county. Motion by Lorenzo Boon and another that Daniel McGucken and others be punished for contempt. An order was accordingly made on the 17th day of September, 1892, adjudging defendants guilty, and fining them $200 apiece and $15 costs each, and requiring the fines to be paid to the clerk of Oneida county, and the costs and disbursements to be paid to plaintiffs. Defendants appeal. Reversed. An injunction order was granted on the 3d day of June, 1892, by a justice of this court. ' A motion was made to vacate and set aside said order, which was denied. It was…
1Opinion of the CourtHarden, P. J.
1. It seems to be settled by authority that in cases of criminal contempt arising under sections 8 and 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure the court has no power to impose costs. In People v. Gilmore, 88 N. Y. 626, it was said, viz,:
“A proceeding, however, to punish for such a contempt is a criminal proceeding, and the general term, on reversal of the order of special term, has no authority to impose costs upon the relator.”
In Stubbs v. Ripley, 39 Hun, 627, in considering an alleged criminal contempt, it was held that the court “did not have power to *426impose upon the defendant $10 costs of the…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Talcott v. . City of BuffaloNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- The Erie Railway Company v. . RamseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- The People v. . SturtevantNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Brinkley v. . BrinkleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- King v. . BarnesNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- People Ex Rel. Stearns v. . MarrNew York Court of Appeals · 1905
- In re HanburyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- First Nat. Bank v. FitzpatrickNew York Supreme Court · 1894
- State ex rel. Seifert v. BrannerIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- Tri-State Investors Corp. v. KitchingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.