United States v. Hall

vested contest wills diction of is actions orig- and no probate in the courts of a state vested jurisdiction

inal actions is such jurisdic- original general the courts of state, sitting in

tion of such a Federal court an ac- jurisdiction such state is without part.. Judge, Biggs, Circuit dissented tion to contest a will.4 opinion The trial court was of apply to the

that the Probate does not Code provi here involved because

trusts provides sions of 59-1611. That section § 16, which limited to account that Article trusts, trustees, apply ing shall begin aft shall

the administration which Probate Code.

er date the effective lim

However, in 59-1611 the limitation § ef Article 16 and has no expressly

ited exclusive upon Article which vests

fect probate jurisdiction in the

original wills.

actions contest case that in the instant

It follows jurisdiction without

the court was

subject-matter action. instructions with

The cause is reversed dismiss the ac- judgment

to vacate prejudice.

tion without v. HALL. STATES

UNITED

No. Docket Appeals Court of Circuit. Second April 8,

Argued Aug.

Decided English, Bennison, ton v. 88 S. 4. Porter Will, 525-527; 62 L.Ed. 664. Ct. In re Broderick’s 514-515, Sut Wall.

727 contempt specified charges The criminal being jurisdic- court in his without Bondy, permitted Judge tions orders Ryan, dated November and April 1951, 2, failing dated and in to sur- by Judge render on ordered Respondent ar- on that date. was raigned pleaded guilty, not the is- and jury pursuant sues were without tried 42, Crim.Proc., 18 Fed.Rules rule U.S.C.A. The district dismissed the second count, respondent guilty but on the held Sacher, City (David Harry New York first and him to third counts and sentenced Freedman, City, on New York M. count, years’ imprisonment three on each appellant. brief), for concurrently. the terms to run D.C.S.D. Cohn, Atty., Roy New Asst. U. S. M. N.Y., 101 F.Supp. 666. Lane, Atty., City U. S. (Myles York J. of the district courts Kilsheimer, III, A. B. and Albert James appeals punish contempt courts of for Blinder, Attys., New York U. S. Asst. Specifically stated in 18 U.S.C.A. 401. § City, appellee. brief), may exercised, such power at the court’s CHASE, BIGGS, CLARK, Before discretion, punish contempt “such of its Judges. Circuit authority” as “Disobedience or resistance to writ, order, rule, decree, process, its lawful CLARK, Judge. Circuit 401(3). command.” 18 U.S.C.A. See § Respondent-appellant was convicted in 402, also Respondent 18 U.S.C.A. 3691. §§ conspiring court below of to teach and seeks, however, by able and industrious government the overthrow of the advocate appeal authority, interpolate historical violence, 2385, by force 18 U.S.C.A. § exception tradition an for disobedience and, conviction, appeal pending from his reappear to orders to for sentence directed on bail this court was ordered released to one convicted enlarged crime and 1951, 3, 4, 1949. On on November pending appeal. June on bail conviction, Supreme Court affirmed his mayWe agree that the common law did 494, Dennis 341 71 v. U.S. not consider an absconding defendant 1137; 857, proposed L.Ed. and a 95 appears of court. It that such appearance mandate order on penalty imposed as was stemmed from the to the United States Marshal for surrender outlawry doctrine which, on defendant’s upon July 2 served counsel on was appear failure proclamation at the fifth July 2, Respondent 28. did n — quinto county exactus —in successive attempts a bench thereafter to execute courts, 4 Bl.Comm. effected a forfei- He his stated address failed. warrant at goods ture of all process and chattels. The apprehended October was equally available in both civil and crim- Laredo, Texas. inal proceedings. 4 Appar- Bl.Comm. 319. ently outlawry imported present proceeding was then com- into crim- our early inal law vigor,1 him and order with some against during affidavit menced century cause served November nineteenth either abolished show v. Doan, Pa.Sup.Ct.1784, Respublica 803; Dall. Com Hale, 1 L.Ed. monwealth v. see Dall. Va.Cas. Appendix, Proceedings 241; Hagerman, Va. o£ Commonwealth v. also Additional 244; 244, 4 of Penn Va.Cas. Va. Executive Council Commonwealth speaks Anderson, sylvania, v. Va.Cas. 4 Va. supplements County outlawry Gunter, Dale v. as “those vindictive 46 Ala. 138- jurisprudence”; severe code Pa.Sup.Ct.1785, Steele, Respublica v. court,” on direct mandate dif- unknown of a “two fell into disuse.2 It was court,3 powers involved, course though and of ferent the acts the civil side of may today and events an historical interest. be the same or interwoven.” Field, Cir., Whatever, may com- then, been the 95, 96, 894, 342 72 certiorari denied U.S. re- punishment jumping, bail mon-law for S.Ct. 202. To similar effect are 18 U.S.C.A. spondent of willful here stands convicted 402 and 3691. We think it would §§ specific made disobedience of certain orders equally hampering authority to the by the need en- district court. We not now dignity court, supported by of a federal thus a ter into the the discussion source of congressional authority, to read into the ;4 contempt power federal sufficient it is statutory grant unexpressed broad an limi- which it the defines the acts toward statute suggested. tation form here may the offense be directed.5 And since charged clearly prescribed specific falls We turn then within counts. only question alleges Bondy’s can arise is Judge classes the first a violation of exception 10,1949. court, is to be carved whether or not This November out, by appeal practices, 2, for 1949, historical respond- to November had ordered the personal, custody for relating appeal orders surrender ent’s .pending release from following enlargement on We upon sentence bail. posting of bond in the amount of not; provision $20,000. think itself con- written The bond was filed the next exception know of and, tains no such and we provisions in addition to the usual for description of qualifying general no case its appearance and surrender execution of for States, 4 offenses. See Fletcher v. United required, specifically sentence when Cir., F.2d certiorari denied 174 depart conditioned “shall that Hall 851, 82, 94 L.Ed. 338 U.S. 70 S.Ct. 521. Not jurisdiction of the District Court pos- long ago that the we refused to hold United States for the Southern District of prosecution sibility under of accusation Shortly New York without there- leave.” sug- or defining a statute crime offered respondent Bondy applied after immunity gested “any violating for permission depart jurisdiction in for IV, II, 7, N.Y.Rev.Stat., power Tit. § 2. Pt. c. See de But has been limited and 20, p. 745, abolishing outlawry Congress 2d, in New fined the act of of March act, terms, applies conviction for York save on indictment or 1831. The in treason, N. Code of Proce courts; Y. Criminal it can be to limit whether held dure, authority Supreme Court, §§ 814-825. powers derives its existence and which Lanning, 91 23 L. Hall v. Constitution, may perhaps from the abe Magruder Foster, 271; Ed. Jurisdic applies But matter doubt. Partnerships, 37 Harv.L.Rev. tion over District can be Circuit and Courts there 793, 799. question. no by courts created Those were “inherent,” Generally labeled see inter Congress. powers act of Their Hudson, States 7 Cranch alia United v. depend upon calling duties act them 259; Michaelson 3 L.Ed. existence, subsequent into extend acts Chicago, Paul, S., Min rel. St. jurisdiction. v. U. ex ing limiting their Ry. Co., neapolis & Omaha 266 U.S. is, therefore, of 1831 act them the law 162; 69 L.Ed. 45 S.Ct. specifying summary eases in which Landes, Cir., 378; Fisher v. contempts 97 F.2d punishment may be inflict Pace, parte Robinson, 336 U.S. 69 S.Ct. Ex ed.” 510, 19 Wall. 569. The recent denomination of 86 U.S. 22 L.Ed. 205. also See as “the statute which § 18 U.S.C.A. Morgan States, Cir., v. United pun a federal court confers 830; Berry Corp., v. Midtown Service contempt,” Sacher v. United ish for F.2d A.L.R. cer 6,1, 343 U.S. tiorari dismissed 308 U.S. interpretative perhaps a new turn 525; Gottman, Cir., In re theory. Landis, Frankfurter Congress Power of over Procedure courts of “The moment the Contempts in “Inferior” into and in Criminal Feder were called existence Study Separation jurisdiction any subject, over al Courts —A with vested they Powers, possessed .power. 37 Harv.L.Rev. 1010. became Qeveland conditions, subsequent its —and order to “take care of his affairs” Ohio, required approval of his sure- including the Northern District of home in the specifies ty. Moreover, its quoted plainly the order granted in an order sanction, namely, be own forfeiture pertinent parts As will footnote.6 this, it as noted, In to construe just-quoted bond. view of this order recites the penalty of then, a direct to return on grant- after mandate condition of the bond and contempt requires little permission, spe- conviction some requested subject to ing the which, sup- adjustment phraseology when or- (including conditions return cified port contempt, think im- provides any violation of conviction we dered), proper. respondent’s bond shall the conditions the be forfeited. Judge the But order of of required equivocal; The court below read the order as it not so bond, promises personally in “that the incorporating the the defendants surrender of cluding to for to those surrender execution the United Marshal for the South York,” only depart jurisdictions. and not to the We ern District of New and the error, question plain sufficiency think no viola this for we find can be as to the tion, purposes for which the de considering supporting finding the evidence a drawn, knowingly disobeyed. Terminal Railroad fendant the former was Under proof 401(3), Association of St. Louis v. United must be of U.S.C.A. there § order, 5,69 150; knowledge and the U.S. the of contemnor’s merely States, Cir., no attaches to course Kelton v. United F. satisfy reap guaranties failure the to certiorari denied S.Ct.

pearance reading A the 864; in the fair bond. 68 L.Ed. burden the and the on Gov that it directed to the Gompers discloses was high ernment is a one. v. Bucks enlargement respondent. Co., The sub Range Stove & 797; ordinate clauses which this directive follow United States v. interpreted merely setting as out Dachis, D.C.S.D.N.Y., are to purposes enlargement Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., the for which this States v. Univis Lens journey permitted to F.Supp. was Hall’s —such Hall, appearing 6. “It that Gus Carl Win- to the Federal District in which his home Thompson, ter, Green, family Gilbert Robert G. defendants-appellants is located to be with his and at- temporarily; and John Gates tend to affairs his that he presently in the above entitled case will return to the Southern District $20,000.00 under in bond the sum of each New York whenever this ordered pending appeal convictions, do; from their Court so in case he removes to upon present changes inter alia is bond conditioned from his home or his ad- defendants-appellants dress, each of said remain- he shall forthwith inform the jurisdiction ing Attorney within the South- for Southern York, effect; ern District of New and it fur- District of New York to that appearing Dunn, ther that each of said defend- Robert who W. executed the bail ants-appellants defendants-appel- resides outside bond each named, give Southern District of New York and is lants hereinabove shall his returning making-and entry desirous of Dis- Federal written consent order; Dunn, in trict which his home located of this and that Robert W. family Field, Hammett, to be with his take Frederick V. Dashiell hereby affairs, Alphaeus Green, care of his it is W. Hunton and Abner Trustees of the Bail Fund of “Ordered that each of said defendants- the Civil Rights Congress appellants, Hall, Winter, York, give Gus shall Carl Gil- New Green, Thompson making their written consent bert Robert G. entry order, given permission hereby of this and it is John Gates is further any depart any from the Southern District “Ordered that violation of upon following express York New of the conditions hereinabove named subject defendants-appellants conditions spects all re- said defendant-appellant to the conditions of the bonds bond of such shall be may depart That he from aforesaid: forfeited.” go Southern District New York and evidence showed Hence from the uncontroverted The evidence adduced specific order appeared af was a Upon Supreme Court’s that there following: directly conviction, appearance, his proposed order firmance willfully him, on and that he on communicated mandate surrender days be- intentionally on Mr. two specific absconded time served case, pos- Sacher, appearance. attorney fore ordered appeared proof gap sible is the lack com- 1951. The next Sacher plete applica support showing awareness Judge Ryan and direct of his before why purpose court attend- the sen of the for which his for orders to show cause tions or, required. vigorous ance In and able as to one of tences should be reduced much of this suspended argument, of ill his counsel makes defendants, because ap suggests that counsel’s own ex- Judge Ryan agreed hear the fact ness. planation indicates that he was plications stated: to the court Sacher and Mr. present arguments my de told to hear the that all of these “You word By quoted the motions. The above at that .time.” statement fendants will be here they however, —'“and advised four failed therefore equivocal, present” and, upon Ryan’s inquiry as to where should at best —is four, Respondent, he Sacher stated we need not look to this alone. last saw these Mr. 29) sophistication Friday (June legal with a he them considerable that had seen involvement, hardly inquired: long court born of could at 35 12th Street. The East (under the you that their arrived at the “Did tell at that time bizarre conclusion them presence required yesterday circumstances) in that he was wanted then was court talk; replied: lawyers’ “Definite his actions morning?” only to hear and Sacher ly. furtively I that be show rather de- absconding As a fact advised matter of in cisively as among I other de under no illusions cause think I saw them that he was Friday, here on fendants after I had been situation. to his motions, Honor, your had these and made therefore, record, the we think this On they should therefore that and advised eminently justified finding in as was they that present, I assured and was complete respondent notice a fact that would be.” disobeyed it.7 willfully order evidence, given well the inference was within There was further a The respondent’s facts, person present, banquet permitted a trier of of a area to if not com- highly where reasonable honor Cleveland' indeed one June respondent, pelled. heavy well other the evidential bur- remarks of as as However the here, hardly prosecution speakers, it can full awareness that he showed den “proof be- imprisoned exacting to his than was about to be serve be held more early ordinary yond morning So in the reasonable doubt” of federal sentence. a jury. to We have been of he was observed his criminal case before a 30 leave June refused, consistently apartment, carrying pressed, suit but have York two often New apply link in the hanger on a to an this formula each some suits auto- cases and mobile, away. alleged that if as He then had events order drive chain mustache, proof overwhelming is not thus light hair a heavier must a reversal of a verdict of weight than at his trial. When he was there process said guilt. Instead we have apprehended three months later on the governed, is to be dyed drawing hair was dark inferences Mexican border his experience, brown, ordinarily, human in- mustache had been removed and finding jury no rule of fact twenty pounds less. He did not deed weighed reality, and that strict te- claim to take the stand. a notice See Pettibone v. United command. 7. That 197, 206,13 commitment, States, rather than 148 U.S. S.Ct. order itself, question; no raises L.Ed. 419. part notice, too, formed court’s attorney in- properly supportable proof quirement constitutes as to burden of proposed client order. rather formed his warning, admonition over-all 401(3), pertinent Section applied statute is precise yardstick to be than proof. United U.S.C.1 segment Title each isolable Cir., Valenti, 2 134 F.2d States v. On the mandate States, v. United certiorari denied Valenti States, Supreme Court Dennis v. United 1317,87 L.Ed. .319U.S. S.Ct. States, Cir., Gariepy v. United down, and Hall was was about to handed Cir., Sherman, 2 459, 462; United v. defendants-appellants on bail as one Spag 619, 621; United States F.2d v. judgment conviction had been whose nuolo, cited cases Den- affirmed Spagnuolo certiorari denied Attorney that case. The United States nis most of the at- caused to be served on but that There can be little doubt torneys defendants-appellants in for the permitted make jury would have been “Notice Dennis a of Settlement” We think rational inference made below. an “Order Mandate” would be effect that beyond a restricted that a court must not be presented signature by the court on compelled to so jury remain blind morning clearly com flouting of its intentional a proposed the follow- order contained “ mand as was here shown. provision: it is ing unusual ordered, adjudged con- further finding We therefore reverse the decreed Bondy's personally tempt [including the defendants order November Hall] surrender to the United States Marshal for finding and affirm the New Ryan’s July 1951. the Southern District of York in Judge House, Though Court necessarily the conviction is af- Room States United Y., Square, York, Foley N. on the- firmed, since the sentences to run con- New currently, day July, 10:30 o’clock in the we have examined both issues at respondent day.” that against that forenoon on error the event apply to the court’s discretion might district represented Hall record in under F.R.Cr. a reduction of sentence by Attorney proceeding Dennis Gladstein Field, 2 P., rule 35. See United States v. Sacher, Attorney who was counsel of 92, 97, and cases cited there- therein, accept- for other defendants record in, Hammett United certiorari denied proposed ed on service of the behalf S.Ct. 202. by signing “Admission Hall of Serv- by by ice” “Richard HS.” Gladstein count; first affirmed Reversed as to the the second count. as to the United On At- June torney appeared open and Mr. Sacher in BIGGS, (concurring in Judge Circuit Judge Ryan. court before Mr. Sacher had part). part dissenting in application which he desired to make opinion majority respecting in the sentences of all the defend- in I concur ants-appellants in that the Dennis case agree one. I cannot and an- respects save application contempt may particularly other going be for criminal conviction defendant-appellant is shown sentence facts from Stachel on sustained Attorney given he to obtain rules to desired cause show the United States that applications. on attorney proposed order both of a United States notice Attorney Judge Ryan sign wished execution his client to sentence, though containing on Mandate” inference the “Order even -of 1. Section authority, at power “A its Sjt discretion, 401 is as punish and none ^[*] by United States follows: such ^[*] fine other, or imprisonment, ^[*] as— shall have ^[*] its lawful or command.” See also the “(3) Disobedience or resistance writ, process, order, rule, decree, 4 Stat. 487-A88. Stat. original and the Act Act of September of March to its provision they Ryan refus- quoted Judge that I above. all should be and was assured * * * any they ed because to make orders in Dennis that court on [woitld] [in pos- opinion July not was of the he did This was the extent of Mr. Sach- 2].” any stipulation. sess the order therein by to enter er’s admission He was until the Court had give any mandate of sworn nor did he evidence at this prior District subsequent been received the United States hearing.3 for the Southern District New Early morning Hall of June York. absconded, Laredo, being apprehended at Texas, anticipated July

It was the mandate some months later. On 2 at Monday, Ryan 2.2 The 11:05 Judge signed would received A. M. the order things, among court said “We will which adjudged Hall been stand pass contempt. on that time.” Counsel On everything figures at and letters satisfactory. indicated would be “2nd” that this were inserted the blank before Ryan right. “All I Judge “day” preceding phrase July, then word stated: “of sign won’t these orders but it is understood paragraph 1951” the face hereto- will be heard on n fore applications quoted these figures and the “10:30” were Monday.” stricken before the out word “o’clock?’ “ID- figures there was inserted therein the stipulated by It was the United States Judge signed OS.” then the order. Attorney hearing Mr. Sacher at the particular It paragraph then read as to the contempt proceeding on tlie on' November : we “ with which are concerned as follows * * * that he had seen “ n ordered, ad- -and it further Friday sometime on at.35 East 29] [June judged and that the defendants decreed [in- City.” 12th York Mr. Sach- Street New cluding personally surrender to Hall] stipulated Friday, er also for the Southern Marshal presence he had informed Hall that his -District of New York Room required in It court on would House, Foley Square, New States Court hearing agreed of November York, Y., July, N. on the 2nd hearing 3 before at a at 11:05 forenoon of that o’clock Sacher, you Ryan, “Did the court asked day.” not The was of course served order tell time their them at that that [June 29] Hall. There that he had on is no evidence required yes- presence was court [Hall’s] knowledge the pro- actual notice or that ?” Mr. re- terday [July morning Sacher 2] posed signed was until con- order ever “Definitely. plied, fact ad- a matter of I As tempt specifications were served on him. among think them because I saw vised that I “Specifications Criminal had been here The of Con after I the other defendants Honor, Friday your tempt,” had has been found 29], and under Hall on [June thereof), “B” motions, guilty (Paragraph and therefore advised state: made these pass every- place colloquy following will on on “The Court: We took 2. The thing and at that time. court between the June enough. respecting motions: all the “Mr. Good counsel Sacher: Saypol you, Satisfactory. Saypol: has told Sacher: “Mr. “Mr. think, re- he has served order right. sign I that I won’t All “The Court: Monday morning at 10 o’clock orders, turnable understood that is these of the mandate applications make the to will heard on Mon- be these day. Court. of this the order good your “May Honor to be ask I you.” Very good. Thank “Mr. Sacher: signing enough of that withhold to transcript of June See arguments you our heard have until order September filed Monday? on later, during Yes, stated 3. Mr.Sacher matters will all “The Court: contempt proceeding, time as Monday that up at course the same on come Hall the order of applications. had not informed two these however, statement, my July 2. The does word that You have Sacher: “Mr. constitute evidence Mr. Sacher not be here at will these defendants under oath when he mad<J it. was time. under disobeyed properly applied be and resisted structive notice “The contemnor ** * case? by sur failing to the circumstances this criminal July 2] [order any time It is constructive or at true that the doctrine of render on said date Texas, Laredo, notice apprehension distinguished notice from actual prior to his as supporting frequently applied af or is in civil knowledge on October 1951.” A Attorney injunction, civil, proceedings. al fidavit of the United States or other belief, suit, pro- re “Upon party injunction leges: information and civil civil a any particular, spondent ceedings well knew of the outstand on notice as Hall is court, may future enter ing orders and decrees of this order which the court illustration, if wilful and deliberate disobedience case. As extreme complaint filed enjoin orders decrees waste and resistance to said has been jurisdiction court and was therefore the court the cause of this its prior if contempt this court and action the defendant criminal and of authority.” spec judgment against A rule was entered decree him the de- affidavit, lays and the ifications and the instant fendant cuts the woods or waste farmland, an peril may proceedings commenced. Hall’s he does so at his were therefore, contempt could not held in entered swer was not and of a valid decree knowledge York, treated of his In New been as evidence the court. under the Civil July Act, signed for he Practice Section amended as contempt prior charged filing with Laws c. notice which apprise his answer. court sufficient a defend- deems application temporary ant of an in- question posed is a narrow one junction deemed render the sufficient to may Conceding, follows: restated as chargeable defendant with a breach be, knew it must on Hall June injunction George when entered. F. See appear requiring an order him to on Korman, Stuhmer & Misc. Co. v. 2 for might execution of his sentence Daniels, N.Y.S. See also Chan- by Judge Ryan made cery Practice, 1684, High, 6th Am. ed. knowledge sufficient sustain his convic- Injunctions, 4th ed. Sections and 1452. tion of of the order 2? Constructive notice is notice which is Despite contrary Hall’s contentions to the Devin, implied by Prouty law. Cal. I entertain no doubt but order 258,50 P. 380. Constructive notice assumes July 2 was a valid one when But entered. prior concerning no information 29 no valid directly personally fact com has been 2 was in none existence: party municated to but is inferred and, indeed, been made below operation legal presumption. See technically without enter Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence, Section any order in the Dennis case for Su- the 593, Nonetheless, 5th 1941. ed. construc preme Court’s mandate had not been receiv- tive notice is held to be sufficient the If ed. Hall is held to to be answer con- great authority weight of in civil suits. tempt order, (1) 2 be facts must But no has been I case cited to us and have shown from which court the below was en- found none where the construc doctrine of titled to infer of that Hall knew the order applied tive has been notice in a criminal entered, 2 (2) had been or Hall must be proceed including contempt a criminal case n responsible application held an of a ing. Though places the United great States theory of constructive notice. reliance decision on the in Pettibone v. supra, As (1) there is no evidence States, 197, 542, 148 United U.S. 13 S.Ct. the record from the court below which 419, 37 the L.Ed. Pettibone decision does could have that Hall inferred knew that support not position the Government’s July 2 the order of had been entered. it is too far removed in its from facts the 5 (2) As to supra, theory the can of Indeed con- instant case. in the Pettibone case Emphasis 4. added. were indicted under R.S. §§ 5399 and 5. In the Pettibone case defendants 18 for cor- §§ U.S.O.A. indicates, by States, opinion strongly albeit 61 S.Ct. L.Ed. way dicta, scienter, viz., knowledge 1172, Newspaper v. overruling of that Toledo Co. is

of an es- the existence of a fact United 247 U.S. crime, alleg- must sential element of the be Hall’s that counsel contends proved. ed and In instant case an es- the whole course our law as well of knowledge England proceeding crime was sential element of the there been of has no part July 2 may Hall that the like the one bar. view asserted at The exaggerated had been entered. be an one but exhaustive inde- pendent similar research has disclosed no Day, pp. In United States v. Fed.Cas. probably It is the first time that a case. 14,934, No. is reference made proceeding been before the like has contempt the curtailment of the inherent courts. federal courts act .crime, charged criminal with a 2, 1831, 4 March Stat. 487. The Master “ * * Fox, * contempt. Cir., In re See Day case stated that this statute fo-r criminal 25. To base conviction beyond guide doubt intended as a upon contempt notice is too constructive courts, forbid in future con- basing close to a conviction on constructive .contempts”, act structive and for to con- “ question contempt. presented in But the contempt, stitute a must there really process. the instant .case is one due existence, be a decree or order in and dis- knowledge Proof of actual or notice obedience resistance to such decree or or part July 2 Hall’s order Tower, In & order.” Cf. re Wisconsin Sixth requirement been is entered a constitutional Day 108 F.2d 538. The decision Moreover, the under all the circumstances. one dealing with constructive Attorney not base did That the rather than constructive notice. charge but on actual on constructive notice drastically Supreme has curtailed the Court alleged “well knowledge. He that Hall operation theory constructive con- of- knew” of the order tempt recently demonstrated as has been so require See no extended may discussion. view bestows It asserted that this Michael, who, Matter of a benefit on the convicted defendant Nye failed, appeal S.Ct. United when his has does not sur- interrupt conspiring ruptly notice, chargeable the course or with or have knowledge justice notice, in a United States Court. or the writ entered, the Dis- Circuit Court for or or at been issued injunction application made; had issued trict of Ohio is to least dispute knowledge process, defend- a labor to restrain the without service of attempting prevent by pendency from ants or notice or information of the any employee proceedings, intimidation a violation cannot force mining companies going pp. 206-207, from See certain made out.” 148 U.S. quashed citing alia, work. inter allege ed., High, Injunctions, indictment it did 3rd because Sections conspiracy purpose of was to But in the Pettibone decision justice by knowledge pointed the administration out that obstruct whenever injunction ingredient issuing or to vio- essential is an offense injunction. implied a mere and not statement late the prohibited emphasis itself scienter the essary element, act is a nec- Fuller laid Mr. Justice Chief alleged necessary which one must for it was the fact -on “* * * proved. [had] to have defendants knowledge quoted or notice or information of The words from Mr. above Chief proceedings opinion employed by pendency United Fuller’s Justice were * * by way analogy exam- of an See for him between States ple, contempt proceedings pp. 205, facts of those of Knowledge Referring Savin, the cited case. of the defend- 13 S.Ct. Petitioner, injunction by ants issued 131 U.S. States United the District of Chief Fuller stat- Justice contempt, persons an was deemed essential Ohio element of “In matters ed : crime, operative an fact a restrain- for the breach had not held liable alleged proved. injunction they ing both know to be unless order or example, render himself for his sen- Judge Ryan’s execution of statements at question great page transcript contempt tence but absconds. A 29 of the of the public involved, policy opinion. is here however. hearings It follows aside, question my it difficulty constitutional can holding guilty Flail of con- Congress said that enacting tempt Section merely pleading. not one provisions Title major- U.S.C. intended its agree reason that I cannot with the ity have the United convic- States courts base phase on this case lies the fact contempt tions for criminal orders not colloquy quoted supra, that' the in note yet speaks entered? When the statute stipulated and the fact that Hall’s counsel “order,” the reasonable conclusion is July had directed him to be in court on that it means an order in esse. support adjudication guilt could not contempt against criminal Hall even tacitly, It suggested, however in the (as not) the case been tried brief of the argued United States and it was theory contempt guilty Hall was that, court, before this reason of col court, prior of a “command” issued loquy during the hearing of express July (set pertinent part 2, supra) out in in note I would reverse Hall’s conviction and di- stipulation and the that Mr. Sacher had told acquittal rect his charge contempt present July (as in court on Judge Ryan’s based on of July below, he should been) prior the court “command,” issued a within the purview of 18 401(3), that U.S.C. Section 2; and, Hall be in court on since Hall response was not in court on “command,” properly adjudged he was

guilty contempt proceed in the instant ing. adopt This view of the case has been NATIONAL LABOR MAJURE et al. v. by majority ed opinion.6 But this court RELATIONS BOARD. Berry Corpo ruled in v. Midtown Service No. 13762. ration, 107, 110,Judge Clark dis senting, it had to be shown that Appeals Court of “ * * * party must have violated an Fifth Circuit. express pun court order before can be July 18, 1952. contempt under ished for the final clause 18]”, citing Section 385 Title former [of Buskirk, Cir., parte Ex 72 F. Dakota Corp. County, Cir., Slope States, Cir., Morgan v. United

F.2d 830. contempt to answer in

Hall was held express

proceeding for violation or- Ryan by Judge 1951 entered

der of insofar

on that as the record before shows, given

us no “command” This the consistent the court. at- parties and of the

titude of and, veritably, proceeding See, case was

theory on which the tried. - Judge Ryan would Hall statements made 6. The court Mr. Sacher on then stated that he presence applications, including would hear court on Hall’s proposed “required” ap- blush color at first lend been But, pear, said, view. as I have Hall’s stated, word, albeit counsel

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Hall

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Date Published: Aug 28, 1952

Citation: 198 F.2d 726

Docket Number: 22315_1

Court Abbreviation: 2d Cir.