TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People ex rel. Messler v. Simonson

The People on the relation of Peter R. Messler v. Silas Simonson

People ex rel. Messler v. Simonson, 9 Mich. 492 (1862)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 20, 1862
Judges
Manning, Other
Citations
9 Mich. 4921862 Mich. LEXIS 8
Headnotes
An appeal to tlie Supreme Court will lie from an order of tlio Circuit Court in Chancery, adjudging a party guilty of a contempt in violating an iojunction, and awarding a sum of money to the opposite party, to indemnify him for the violation
Summary
Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for the county of Shiawassee in Chancery.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Manning

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Manning J.:

This is an appeal from an order made under §4094 of Compiled Laws, punishing defendants for a contempt for violating an injunction, which the relator moves to have dismissed. The section is as follows:

“If an actual loss or injury has been produced to any 'party, by the misconduct alleged, the Court shall order a sufficient sum to be paid by the defendant to such party to indemnify him, and to satisfy his costs and expenses, instead of imposing a fine upon such defendant; and in such case, the payment and acceptance of such sum shall be an absolute bar to any action by such aggrieved party to recover damages for such injury or loss.”

The order is final, and can not be reviewed unless on an appeal from the order itself. It is more of a oivil than criminal nature; its principal object being to compel defendants to make compensation to the relator for the injury they have done him in violating the injunction, rather than to vindicate the dignity of the Court and the majesty of the laws. For these reasons wo are all of opinion the motion should be denied.

The other Justices concurred.'

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1870–1871: 11882–1883: 11892–1893: 11908–1909: 11966–1967: 118702026peak 1870 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Cross Co. v. UAW Local No. 155139 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 1966)
  2. Kingsbury v. Kingsbury20 Mich. 212 (1870)
  3. State v. Schneider47 Mo. App. 669 (1892)
  4. Jastram v. McAuslan71 A. 454 (R.I. 1909)
  5. Caro v. Maxwell20 Fla. 17 (1883)

Most recent

  1. Cross Co. v. UAW Local No. 155139 N.W.2d 694 (Mich. 1966)
  2. Jastram v. McAuslan71 A. 454 (R.I. 1909)
  3. State v. Schneider47 Mo. App. 669 (1892)
  4. Caro v. Maxwell20 Fla. 17 (1883)
  5. Kingsbury v. Kingsbury20 Mich. 212 (1870)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list