TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minnesota Moline Plow Co.

Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Minn. Moline Plow Co., 124 F. 735 (8th Cir. 1903)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 1, 1903
Judges
Sanborn
Citations
124 F. 73561 C.C.A. 571903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4120
Headnotes
1. Injunction — Jurisdiction to Punish for Violation — Filing of Mandate from Appellate Court. Where a mandate from the Circuit Court of Appeals, directing the entry of a decree granting an injunction, has been filed in the Circuit Court, jurisdiction to punish for contempt for a subsequent violation of such injunction is in the Circuit Court, and not in the appellate court.
Summary
On Demurrer to Petition to Attach for Contempt.

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

Opinion of the Court — Sanborn

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

SANBORN, Circuit Judge

(orally). An examination of the affidavits discloses the fact that the contempt charged in this case occurred subsequent to the filing of the mandate of this court in the United States Circuit Court. The proposition to which Mr. Howard has addressed himself, to the effect that every party in a proceeding is bound to take notice of the order of the court, and obey it, is undoubtedly sound; and, if there had been a violation of the injunction which was practically ordered by this court during the time antecedent to the remission of the mandate, the court would proceed to punish for contempt, if it thought proper to do so. But when the mandate of this court was remitted to the Circuit Court, the decree of that court was, in effect, modified, as declared by the opinion of this court; or, if not modified simply by the filing of that mandate, it was in the power of that court, upon motion of the successful party, to so change its decree that it would read in accordance with the opinion then handed to it by this court. If that application has not been made, it may still be made; and if there has been a violation of that decree since the mandate was remitted, we are unanimously of the opinion that the jurisdiction to punish for that violation is not in this court, but in the Circuit Court. For this reason, the demurrer will be sustained, and the petition dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1918: 11919: 11925: 119182026peak 1918 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rosenfield v. Campbell276 S.W. 728 (Tex. App. 1925)
  2. Beverly v. Roberts215 S.W. 975 (Tex. App. 1919)
  3. Eaton v. De Graff184 Iowa 769 (1918)

Most recent

  1. Rosenfield v. Campbell276 S.W. 728 (Tex. App. 1925)
  2. Beverly v. Roberts215 S.W. 975 (Tex. App. 1919)
  3. Eaton v. De Graff184 Iowa 769 (1918)

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