Brown v. BrownBrown v. Brown
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Scctt
This сase was formerly before this court on an application by the defendant in error for an allowance of attorney’s, fees for рreparing her brief and representing her in this court. (Ante, p. 92; 135 Pac. 801). Upon consideration we allowеd attorney’s fees in the sum of $250 for that purposе. The case is now here upon a showing by affidavits that plaintiff in error has failed to comply with such order and an application for an order citing him before this court to show cause, if any there be, why he should not be punished as for cоntempt in failing to comply with such order. We think it unnecessary to review the affidavits in support and thе counter affidavits in opposition submitted upоn the hearing of this application other than to say that it sufficiently appears therefrom that the order has not been complied with. аnd no good reason is shown for the failure of plaintiff in that respect. We ‘think the allowance for attorney’s fees was reasonable in amount and it will be observed that the plaintiff in error is thе one who is in default. The defendant in error seeks no affirmative relief in the proceeding in еrror in this court as to the judgment. Upon‘the showing when thе allowance was made and upon the hearing here she was and is without means to pay а reasonable attorney’s fee for the sеrvices of her attorneys in preparing and filing a brief and appearing in this court on her behаlf to properly defend such judgment. No brief has been filed in her behalf in this court while plaintiff’s brief has bеen on file for a year.
While the method of enforcing its orders by citation and punishment as for сontempt may in a proper case bе resorted to in this court, yet upon the facts here there is in our judgment a more effective rеmedy. The plaintiff in error is guilty, if at all, of a civil but not а criminal contempt. He has failed without exсuse to comply with the order of this court, and by his рetition in error is seeking affirmative relief at thе hands of this court. It is elementary that such conduct is not favored. One cannot refuse to obey the lawful order of a court and expect relief at the *318hands of the court. This rule is a salutary one and has been often applied by the courts. (Casteel v. Casteel, 38 Ark. 477; Peel v. Peel, 50 Ia. 521; McClung v. McClung, 40 Mich. 493; Waters v. Waters, 49 Mo. 385; Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 7 Mont. 114, 14 Pac. 665; Walker v. Walker, 82 N. Y. 260; Williams v. Williams, 6 S. D. 284, 61 N. W. 38). The motion for а citation to issue as prayed is refused, but this cоurt is of the opinion that if the order remains uncomplied with on June first next, to-wit: June 1, 1914, then a showing to that effect will support a motion to dismiss the proceedings in error.
Potter, J., and Beard, J., concur.