33 So. 2d 833 | Miss. | 1948
This cause is before us on appeal from a decree of the Chancery Court of Stone County, wherein appellant was adjudged guilty of contempt for disobedience to an injunction from that Court.
The conviction followed the filing of a petition by appellees, charging appellant with violation of the injunction granted them in a pending chancery court suit, praying that he be cited for contempt of court because thereof. Citation was issued, and served, requiring appellant to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt. Appellant answered, and the matter was thus put at issue. Proof was heard, and, as stated, the chancellor decreed appellant to have acted in violation of the injunction, and to be in contempt.
This decree contained the following clause: "It is, therefore, accordingly the opinion of the Court, and the Court so finds, that defendant, L.R. Bond, should be, and he is hereby, adjudged to be in contempt of Court by reason of the interference with complainant's employees in manner and form as hereinabove set forth; and that he thereby subjected himself to the imposition of such penalty as the Court in its judgment and discretion may see fit to impose and enforce. The Court is further of the opinion, however, that any penalty which should be imposed should not be now enforced, but should be deferred until later at such time as the Court may in its judgment determine to fix and impose same, it being *285 the desire and purpose of the Court that defendant be given opportunity to now comply with the Court's order and writ heretofore rendered, issued and executed, and it will be the purpose of the Court to finally forego the imposition of any penalty upon the defendant, unless he should hereafter violate the provisions of said decree and injunction."
Appellees have filed here a motion to dismiss the appeal from this adjudication on the ground that it is not a final decree, because it does not impose any penalty, deferring same until a later day; or, foregoing same altogether upon the happening of the contingency therein set out. The answer of appellant to this motion simply denies that "the decree is interlocutory, and that it is one from which no appeal can be taken."
The sole question before us is, whether or not the decree is of such a final character as to authorize an appeal therefrom. In our judgment the decree is not final. Therefore, Hanna v. State ex rel. Rice,
Section 152, Code 1942, governing appeals from judgments for contempt, lays the predicate, for the right to appeal, in the following language: "A person ordered by any tribunal, except the Supreme Court, to be punished for a contempt, may appeal to the court to which other cases are appealable from said tribunal, and may supersede any fine imposed . . ." There was no fine or punishment of any kind imposed by the decree of conviction of contempt here, as shown supra. *286
In the case of Nutt v. State,
This case was cited and followed by Eure v. Taylor, et al.,
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the motion to dismiss the appeal is sustained.
Appeal dismissed.