Adams v. Haskell & Woods

An order, committing a party for contempt, and ordering that he he imprisoned until he comply with a previous order commanding him to pay into Court a certain sum of money, is an excess of jurisdiction, and void, where the party had made affidavit, which was uncontradicted, that the money had passed from his possession and control before the proceedings in contempt were commenced. Though Courts are exclusive judges of their own contempts, still, a party cannot be imprisoned for neglecting or refusing to do what, it appears, it is out of his power to perform.

Certiorari to the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District. The alleged excess of jurisdiction, upon which this writ was sued out, was an order made in the Court below, committing A. A. Cohen for contempt in refusing to pay over the sum of ten thousand dollars to Henry M. Naglee, (the receiver appointed by the Court in this action,) in compliance with a previous order to that effect, directed to Richard Roman, Edward Jones, and A. A. Cohen, former custodians of the fund, as assignees in insolvency of Adams & Co. Against the granting of the first order, Cohen showed cause for retaining the sum of ten thousand dollars for commissions, disbursements, etc.; but was ordered by the Court to pay over the sum, and present his accounts to be audited. Against the issuance of the commitment, commanding his imprisonment until he paid over the money to Naglee, Cohen • filed his affidavit, that before the proceedings in contempt had commenced, the ten thousand dollars, which he was ordered to pay over, had passed from his possession and control, and that he had complied, as fully as was in his power, with the order of the Court. This affidavit is not contradicted. The Court below refusing to discharge Cohen from arrest, the writ of certiorari was sued out by Cohen.