Satterlee v. De Comeau
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from an .order adjudging the defendants to be in contempt. A judgment having been obtained by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the defendants, on the 29th of May, 1868, procured from the chief justice, ex parte, a chamber order staying all proceedings on the part of the plaintiffs to enforce the judgment, and all proceedings with reference thereto. This order was served on the plaintiffs’ attorney on the 4th of June, 1868, by serving a certified copy.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an .order adjudging the defendants to be in contempt. A judgment having been obtained by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the defendants, on the 29th of May, 1868, procured from the chief justice, ex parte, a chamber order staying all proceedings on the part of the plaintiffs to enforce the judgment, and all proceedings with reference thereto. This order was served on the plaintiffs’ attorney on the 4th of June, 1868, by serving a certified copy. It appears there was nothing in the copy order so served indicating by what judge it was made; and the plaintiffs’ attorney…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Jones, J.
I do not. perceive on what principle the client can be punished as for a contempt for an act done by his attorney, without his direction, knowledge, privity or procurement.
The proceedings to punish for a contempt are in their nature quasi criminal. The party adjudged guilty is to be punished either by fine or imprisonment, or both. By his act of contempt he subjects himself to a liability to punishment in either of those modes. If then the client is guilty of contempt for an act done by his attorney without his knowledge, &c., then he becomes liable to be punished by a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Harris v. ClarkNew York Supreme Court · 1854