In re Rhodes
In the Matter of John C. Rhodes.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Rodman, J, After the order of the 12th of May,, in the case of Bear v. Cohen, reported ante 511, that, the Sheriff of Wayne .should re-deliver the goods to the defendants, his Honor Judge *519 Watts, it appearing to him that the Sheriff had failed to re-deliver the goods accordingly, at Wilson on the 24th of May, ordered that the Sheriff (Ehodes) “ pay into the Court two thousand dollars for the use of the defendants, (in that action,) as damages for the unlawful detention of the same, (the stock of goods,) unless he, the said Ehodes, shall within twenty-four hours, after the notice of the order, deliver said stock of goods to the Attorney <of Eecord of said defendant, or his appointee.”
The goods were accordingly delivered to the defendant.
The Sheriff, Ehodes, obtained a certiorari from» this Court, Hinder which, the order of his Honor comes up for review.
In the principle case, Bear v. Cohen, ante, p. 511, we have •already decided, that his Honor had no jurisdiction to make an ■order for the re-delivery of the goods. Eor the same reason he had no jurisdiction to fine the Sheriff of Wayne, for disobedience of that order. His judgment to that effect was therefore void.
We think it our duty also, to notice another point in the ^present case, lest our silence may be considered an approval of 'the order fining the Sheriff. Supposing the Judge to have had jurisdiction of the case, and that his order of the 12th of May, was lawful, he might have fined the Sheriff for a contempt of Court, in disobeying it. But a fine for contempt is a punishment for a wrong to the State, and goes to the State. We know of no law by which a Judge can direct a fine for a contempt of his Courj, to be paid to a party to a suit, or can assess in favor of such party, damages which he has sustained by the delay or refusal of the Sheriff to obey an order in the cause.
We asked to be referred to some precedent, for such an order, but none was found. The order of the 24th of May, above ■referred to, is void.
Per Curiam, Error,
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.