at circuit that a United States commissioner has no power to punish for contempt.13 It was held to be a contempt of court to sue in a court of another State a party while there for the purpose of attending the taking of a deposition; and a fine of the expenses of such suit including the counsel fees therein, was imposed upon the party who brought it.14 Misbehavior of a person in the presence of the court may consist in an assault,15 or in abusive language addressed to the court 16 or one of its officers 17 or any person there.18 Similar conduct in an anteroom of the court or so near the court-room as to be heard therein is also punishable as a contempt.19 It has been said to be a contempt for an attorney to carry a pistol into court.20 A hearing before a master in chancery or examiner is, for this purpose, treated as a proceeding in court.21 The cases affecting receivers have been cited in the chapter on Receivers.22 Proceedings before a grand jury are considered to be in the presence of the court; 28 and an attempt in the hall adjoining the room where a grand jury is in session to bribe a witness summoned before it is a contempt of court.24 It has been held in Ohio, under a statute similar to that limiting the powers of the Federal courts to punish for contempts, that the publication of charges of misconduct against a judge holding court, in a newspaper which the writer had reason to believe would be circulated and read in the courtroom, and which was thus circulated and read, is "misbehavior in the presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of court or justice." 25 It is not a contempt to serve a suitor with a summons while he is in attendance on a term of court, provided he is not served in the court's presence.26 An officer of the court may be punished by attachment for his misbehavior in office after his term of office has expired by res 18 In re Mason, 43 Fed. R. 510; Re Perkins, cited 43 Fed. R. 515; Ex parte Doll, 7 Phila. 595. 14 Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 17, 45-47. 16 Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. R. 726; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419; U. S. v. Patterson, 26 Fed. R. 509. 18 U. S. v. Emerson, 4 Cranch C.C. 188; U. S. v. Carter, 3 Cranch C. C. 423. 19 U. S. v. Emerson, 4 Cranch C. C. 188. 23 Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267. 16 Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re Bulletin, 404; s. c. 22 N. E. R. 43. See Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419. 17 Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; In re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419. Cooper v. People, 13 Colorado, 337. 26 Blight v. Fisher, Peters' Circuit Court Reports, 41. ignation or otherwise. An attorney 28 or other officer 29 of the court may be thus compelled to pay to a person named in the order money received by him in his official capacity. Where, however, there is room for a reasonable doubt as to how much is due from the officer, the court will usually refuse to proceed against him summarily, and require the complaining party to begin a suit.30 A juror has been punished for contempt because he had talked about the case in violation of the court's direction to the contrary,31 It has been held, that a person enjoined from the infringement of a patent is in contempt if he contributes to a fund to defray the expenses of another who is contesting the validity of the patent. It has been held, that a defendant corporation which, when enjoined from selling a certain cordial in certain bottles with a particular label, sold its entire stock of cordials with such bottles and labels to a third person, under an arrangement that he would fill all orders for the cordial which the defendant should receive, was guilty of contempt, although it did not share in the profits of such sales, and although it acted under advice of counsel.33 It has been said to be a contempt of court to bring before it a collusive suit. It has been held that it is a contempt to represent by words and by printed circulars that a sale under an execution is invalid, and that any one who buys will become involved in litigation.35 A person is not relieved from punishment for contempt because he acted in good faith under the advice of counsel that he was not infringing the court's order.36 If, however, the question as to whether he is in contempt is doubtful, the court will not punish him. A domestic or foreign corporation, as well as an individual, may be fined for a contempt.38 27 The Laurens, 1 Abb. Adm. 508. 28 In re Paschal, 10 Wall. 483; Jeffries v. Laurie, 27 Fed. R. 195. 29 Re Pitman, 1 Curt. 186; Bagley v. Yates, 3 McLean, 465; The Laurens, 1 Abb. Adm. 508. Fecamp v. Western Distilling Co., 42 Fed. 34 Lord v. Veazie, 8 How. 251; Cleve- 36 Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Ditt 30 See In re Paschal, 10 Wall. 483; man Powder Manuf. Co., 9 Fed. R. 316. U. S. v. Mann, 2 Brock. 9. 37 California Paving Co. v. Molitor, 31 Re May, 1 Fed. R. 737; U. S. v. De- 113 U. S. 609; Onderdonk v. Fanning, vaughan, 3 Cranch C. C. 84. 2 Fed. R. 568; Lilienthal v. Wallach, 37 32 Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett, Fed. R. 241; Truax v. Detweiler, 46 Fed. 30 Fed. R. 683. R. 117. 33 Société Anonyme de la Distillerie de la Liqueur Benedictine de la Abbaye de 88 United States v. Memphis & L. R. R. Co., 6 Fed. R. 237. T T The rules pro § 342. Notice of Application for Attachment. vide that if a decree be for the performance of a specific act, other than the payment of money, it must prescribe the time. within which the act shall be done, "of which the defendant shall be bound without further service to take notice;" 1 and that, "except in cases where personal or other notice is specially required or directed," an entry of an order in the order-book is sufficient notice thereof to the parties to the suit. It is, however, the safer practice, if not indispensable, to make personal service of a certified copy of a decree or order, disobedience to which it is desired to punish by an attachment. In case of disobedience to a decree for the performance of a specific act, other than the payment of money, the rules direct the issue of an attachment ex parte by the clerk, upon the filing of an affidavit that the act has not been performed within the required time. It is, however, the usual practice to give notice to the delinquent, of an application for an attachment, either by an order to show cause or otherwise. An attachment may be issued at the request of a person not a party to the cause in whose favor an order has been made, or against a person not a party to the cause against whom obedience to an order can be enforced. Notice of the application, when required, should be served personally upon the person thereby affected. If a party conceals himself to avoid personal service of the notice, perhaps notice may be served upon an attorney who has appeared for him in the proceeding in which the contempt was committed. The proceeding is in its nature criminal, not civil.9 When the § 343. Hearing upon Applications for Attachments. contempt was committed in the presence of the court, no notice nor trial of any disputed question of fact is necessary. It has § 342. 2 Rule 4. 1 Rule 8. 8 In re Cary, 10 Fed. R. 622; In re Lloyd, 10 Beav. 451. But see Re Feeny, 1 Hask. 304; s. c. 4 N. B. R. [70] 233; Skip v. Harwood, 3 Atk. 564; Hearn v. Tenant, 14 Ves. 136; People v. Brower, 4 Paige (N. Y.), 405. 4 Rule 8. 5 Worcester v. Truman, 1 McLean, 483; Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63. 6 Rule 10. Woolw. 63; Hollingsworth v. Duane, 8 Eureka L. & Y. C. Co. v. Superior Court of Yuba County, 116 U. S. 410, 418. 9 Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheaton, 38; In re Pitman, 1 Curtis, 186; Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63; Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 21; New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 387; Re Manning, 44 Fed. R. 275. § 343. 1 Er parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289; 7 Gray v. Chicago, I. & N. R. R. Co., 1 In re Terry, 36 Fed. R. 419. been held at circuit that in any other case, at least when an attachment has been issued, a person charged with contempt may demand that interrogatories be filed concerning the facts which, it is claimed, constitute his offence; and that, if he denies the facts charged under oath, he cannot be punished, the only remedy being an indictment against him for perjury: 2 but a recent decision of the Supreme Court seems contrary to these rulings. He cannot be compelled to answer interrogatories.* Otherwise, when at the argument of the motion for an attachment the party accused of disobedience denies the charge, the court may either determine the disputed question of fact upon such affidavits as are then presented to it, or refer the question to a master. If the court find the charge proved, or the master so report and his report be confirmed, the court may then punish the offender by fine or imprisonment, and, if a fine be imposed, direct him "to stand committed till it be paid." The court may make a preliminary order directing that he be fined; determining the principles with regard to which the amount of the fine should be estimated; and directing either the submission of the amount to the court upon affidavits, or a reference to a master for that purpose. When an injunction against the infringement of a patent has been violated, the fine may include the profits made by the defendant by his contemptuous acts; and in that case the order may direct that that part of the fine be paid to the complainant.8 When the contempt consisted in the institution of a suit, the fine should include the expenses of the defense of such suit including reasonable counsel fees, which must be paid to the party against whom the contemptuous suit was brought. In these cases the writ of attachment does not issue till after the final order. "In proceedings in equity between parties to a suit for contempt in not obeying the process of the court, or any order or decree in the cause, the proceedings in equity between parties to a suit for 2 U. S. v. Dodge, 2 Gall. 313; Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 77. See U. S. v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 103. 8 Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267. Hollingsworth v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 77. See U. S. v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 102. Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63. In a recent interesting case it was held that the evidence was insufficient to prove a contempt. See Woodruff v. North Bloomfield Gravel Min. Co., 45 Fed. R. 129. 6 Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63; U. S. R. S. § 725. 7 Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fed. R. 63. Searls v. Worden, 13 Fed. R. 716; 8. c. as Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, In re Mullee, 7 Blatchf. 23; Doubleday v. Sherman, 8 Blatchf. 45. Bridges v. Sheldon, 7 Fed. R. 747. 7 contempt in not obeying the process of the court, or any order or See 10 Judge, now Mr. Justice, Blatchford 11 Anon., 3 Atkyns, 219. 12 Searls v. Worden, 13 Fed. R. 716. 3 Re Mullee, 7 Blatchf. 23. 4 Matter of Marsh, MacArth. & M. (D. C.) 32. 5 Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U. S. 121. Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713; Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289. See §§ 366, 367, infra. 7 Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 267, 279; Stevens v. Fuller, 136 U. S. 468, 478. See §§ 366-367, infra. 8 Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14, 26. |