*1 Township Appellant. East Caln v. Carter, J., Jones, Before January C. Argued 22,1970. Bell, JJ. Pomeroy, Roberts O’Brien, Cohen, Eagen, *2 appellant. Arthur F. for Ewrley, E. for appellee. Glenvar Harman, Opinion by 9, October Mr. Chief Justice Bell, 1970: appellant Clayton
In and February 1966, January tracts adjacent two and his wife Jr., purchased Carter, and Township in situated Uwchlan land partially tracts in Parts of these Township. East Cain partially of appel- one by had been maintained as trailer park possession in taking lant’s title. predecessors Upon intending it, the land, appellant began improve camp. or trailer develop and this mobile home expand zon- Attempts comply persuade failed. In East and other ordinances June ing Cain with several individual plain- Township, together in alleged appel- filed a bill which tiffs, Equity lant and were and establishing maintaining his wife mobile home or trailer violation of the Zoning park of East Several Township. Ordinance Cain hearings At injunctions and followed. one preliminary time, for for Carter whs fined Court mov- $500 additional trailers onto land in ing violation of a injunction. After additional preliminary find- hearings, of fact and ings conclusions law were made and a April on nisi entered 1968. The Court Decree appellant’s exceptions subsequently on and dismissed August entered a final Decree. 2, 1968, pertinent part: Clayton provided, in .
The Decree . . and his . are here Loretta Carter, Jr., Carter, wife, enjoined operating park from restrained and a trailer upon part any their land East thereof situate Township they county, Cain . are ordered this . . any and directed to remove and all house forthwith places now trailers used as human habitation from designed as well as all such tract, trailers which are * they or intended such use or are further any pipes, dered and directed to desist from the use of septic pumps, cesspools, any wells, tanks and other designed facilities devoted to or use as sewage disposal system supply facility or water now located said tract. ...” August appellee
On filed the lower Court 23,1968, *3 petition contempt petition a for and Court for enforcement of the Final Decree. In Court’s the mean- appellants appeal filed an time, in this Court which we prossed January non on May On 23, 1969. 1, 1969, hearing by petitions was held the lower Court on the for Court and enforcement of the Final appellee presented hearing, testimony Decree. At this prove appellants that had not the removed house trailers and mobile from homes their land as mandated by continuing operate the but were Decree, the trail- park Appellants presented er as before. evidence they installing sewage show that were facilities to com- ply public with the various health ordinances involved, they pressed and testified that appeal had not their they thought improvements this Court because that the they satisfy which made would all the terms and re- quirements Appellants of the Decree. further testified throughout ours,
*Italics unless otherwise noted. week past the within become aware had they only that in the or included involved matter was that any zoning Decree. Order an entered Court the lower
On May 2, Court. appellant-husband holding the might that appellant provided (1) The Court further the all removing the contempt by purge himself of situated park the trailer house trailers from that and (2) June Township 1, 1969, East Cain fol- remove trailers refused to if appellant day per imposed: would be lowing penalties $100 for the second per day the first week June after 1; $200 subsequent for each per day week thereafter; $300 further that The Order lengthy provided day. Court’s as- so of the penalties if failed pay County he be committed to Chester sessed, should he or until was Farms until were penalties paid no that with the further proviso otherwise discharged, three period should exceed single imprisonment months in if Decree but that violations of the duration, if the continued that three-month beyond period, then still not would payments made, appellant were Farms as that recommitted to Chester so County long Contempt It from unfilled condition continued. this appeals. Order that Carter two issues in presents appeal. Carter this Appellant Contempt He Order May 2, first contends him an indirect criminal con- punishing as limitations such, exceeded tempt, and, statutory We this was a governing punishment. disagree; such He further contends that the lower *4 finding Court erred him because he had been copy never served with the Court’s pei’sonally Order and have did not sufficient actual knowledge its to make him liable for it. contents There violating no shall see, is as we con- appellant’s merit, tentions.
611 I.
Contempt
This
in Brocker v.
429
241
Pa.
Court,
Brocker,
513,
A. 2d
at
sub
336, recently
great
discussed
length
ject
contempt. There we
519-521):
“The
(pages
Courts
possessed
power
have
the inherent
always
enforce their Orders and
penalties
Decrees
imposing
and sanctions for failure to
or
therewith.
obey
comply
Commonwealth ex rel. Beghian v.
408 Pa.
Beghian,
408,
“The dominant purpose* and objective of the Court’s Order is the factor in the controlling* determination of whether the contempt civil or criminal. Not only the dividing line civil between criminal sometimes shadowy or the same but facts or obscure, conduct may constitute or amount to both criminal contempt. United States v. United Mine Work ers of America, supra. it U.S., clear Moreover, present a Court can for past acts misbe-
* Opinion. Italics in Brocker Brocker v.
612' an uncon- impose contempt to civil amounting haviour fine a conditional fine compensatory ditional and/or the to payable fine be may and such and imprisonment, coun- to the or to Commonwealth or the States United States United injured. who was to the individual or ty supra; 330 U.S., of America, Workers v. Mine United Gom- 187; 336 U.S. Paper Co., v. Jacksonville McComb Com- 418; 221 U.S. & Range Co., Stove v. Bucks pers supra; 408 Pa., v. Beghian, rel. Beghian ex monwealth 126 2d 370. F. v. United States, Parker (C of Ameri Mine Workers States v. United
“In United the Court held that Supreme the supra, ca, U.S., in John L. guilty found Lewis properly trial Court both guilty and Union contempt criminal direct inter . The Court contempt* said, civil and criminal . . would 303-304) : ‘Common sense 298-299, alia (pages to can amount both and that conduct civil recognize . The also properly criminal . . trial court contempt. of civil Judicial found the defendants guilty in a sanctions civil contempt proceedings may, proper or purposes: either both two employed case, for into with court’s compliance coerce defendant compensate and to complainant losses order, su sustained* v. Stove & Gompers Range Co., Bucks ” at 449.’ pra, We said in Knaus v. 2d 387 Pa. 127 A. Knaus, : The dominant 376-77) (pp. pu/rpose of proceeding determines whether it is civil or criminal. If the dominant is to and purpose vindicate the dignity the court and authority protect the interest it is a general proceeding for criminal con public, But the act of tempt. complained where refusal do or from doing refrain act ordered some prohibited primarily benefit of a private Opinion. *Italics Brocker v. Brocker the de- enforce proceedings compliance party, of the civil nature. The purpose cree court are sanc- contempt proceeding remedial, judicial into (1) tions are to coerce the employed defendant with the court’s in- compliance some (2) order, stances to compensate complainant sus- losses *6 tained.”
This teat and have been iter- legal these principles ated and on reaffirmed numerous occasions the by United States In of Supreme Court. the recent case Shillitani v. United States, 384 the Court 364, U.S. “ (pages of 370-371) : ‘It not the fact punishment but rather its character and that often purpose serve to distinguish’ civil from criminal contempt. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & 441 Range U.S. Co., (1911)
“The conditional nature
imprisonment—based
the
of
the
contemnor’s
entirely
continued defiance—-
justifies holding civil contempt
absent
the
proceedings
safeguards
indictment and
Uphaus v.
jury,
Wyman,
of
The three discussed in the appeal factors before us appear also Brocker v. In supra. Brocker, Pa., that case, as here, (1) was to the penalty payable county; (2) imprisonment compliance pending was or- dered ; and (3) appellant was given opportunity to himself of purge the contempt. I't is clear from the facts in this case that tdie dominant purpose and objec- tive the Court’s Order of May was to 2, 1968, compel of Carter to Clayton with the comply injunctive Decree which ordered the removal the trailers. This is made further evident by the final of the paragraph Court’s Order: “We point would out further that if the defendants pursue the avenues open them under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and obtain valid a expansion continuance their authorizing
permit a position then be their would they business, until Final Decree. However, modification seek with as complied Decree or the Final is done, of Court.” Jr. entered, Clayton Carter, of the Court and intent dominant purpose That the further its Order is compliance with to enforce Contempt Order which its from that apparent to comply month with period one grace Carter gave himself purge the further opportunity Order and time thereafter com- of Court at any all Order. The condi- Court’s obeying with plying Contempt we nature Order, which, repeat, tional of all contempt by himself purge allowed appellant within a reasonable Court’s Order complying it clearly makes time,
II. Notice *7 in con- he not be held that should Appellant alleges the De- not that tempt of Court be was aware because from that him to cree remove the trailers required Township. in Cain of trailer East park situated at- did appellant record indicates that clearly The for his facilities tempt provide sewage water and this was thought trailer and he contends that he park, the de- the sole involved. It is also true that problem of the copy fendant was not served with personally Decree. a defend- previously
This Court has
held that before
of
of Court it
may
ant
be cited
an Order
be
that he had
of the
knowledge
must
shown
actual
Estate,
“The is that the order corollary proposition this which said to have been specific violated must be and definite. [Citations omitted].”
Appellant received no formal education beyond sixth level. ITe grade paper works mill an air as operator. hammer during the course this However, he litigation has had the assistance of no fewer than different eight It is difficult attorneys. believe none of these him attorneys made the issue aware zoning provisions of the pertinent Ordinance this case. discussions which took at Moreover, place several show that had hearings appellant actual know- ledge that he violating the zoning ordinance by trailers maintaining and that park, enforcement of this Ordinance had been consistently required by Orders the Court.
The sentence contempt was not only legally it Constitutionally fair valid, was and justifiable. also Order affirmed, pay costs.
Mr. Justice Jones and Mr. Justice Cohen concur in the result.
Dissenting
Opinion
by Mr. Justice
:
Roberts
In order for a contempt conviction to be
it
valid,
must be shown that
the defendant was either person-
served with a
ally
of the
copy
decree
which the
*8
is based or
had actual
of the de-
knowledge
cree. Wilson v. North
Carolina,
U.S.
18 S. Ct.
In Re
(1898);
decree, and, the trial court there neither finding by opinion, nor of the decree evidence knew an could based. Since finding which such to a conviction precondition essential to af- caprice from it would be missing pure this ease, firm the conviction. I dissent.
Accordingly, Will.
Treitinger