226 N.W. 917 | Iowa | 1929
This proceeding may find disposition by a reaffirmance of the rule applicable to the facts in the instant *1225
matter. It is sufficient to cite the following cases: Peel v.Peel,
Disobedience to a court order or decree in a case of this character must be willful; and when the facts disclose that the disobedience alleged is not willful, then there is no contempt. Such is the case at bar. The defendant owned no property of any kind, and therefore it is idle to claim in the contempt proceeding that he was "secreting his property," which was one of the grounds alleged in the "motion for rule to show cause." It is conceded that the defendant had no source from which he could obtain money to pay plaintiff; that he is in poor health, as a result of a serious rupture, and is receiving medical attention at all times. We are abundantly satisfied that the respondent judge erred in adjudging the petitioner guilty of contempt, when the record shows without dispute, and admittedly, that the petitioner is unable to perform the judgment, lost his position as a result of the erstwhile wife's harassment of the railroad company which employed him, and has no property or *1226 money, and is under the care of a physician, by reason of a serious ailment.
The writ issued is — Sustained.
ALBERT, C.J., and STEVENS, MORLING, and WAGNER, JJ., concur.