Morehouse

Morehouse v. Giant Powder Co.

Good Law
124 C.C.A. 158·206 F. 24·1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1524
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 20, 1913No. 2,145California1,821 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

GILBERT, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). [1] We find no merit in the contention that the court below had no power or jurisdiction to enter the judgment for contempt committed against the. court wherein the injunction was issued for the reason that that court- ceased to exist on January 1, 1912, by virtue of the provisions of the new Judicial Code (Act March .3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1167 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 244]). The'District Court was not abolished by the Judiciary Act. in the sense and with the effect which is contended for. The new Judicial Code, so far as it affected the District Courts, was but a re-enactment of the existing law. Section 294 provides that:

' And section 299 declares that the repeal of existing laws or the amendments thereof embraced in the act shall not affect any act done or any right accruing or accrued.

-. [2] It is assigned as error that the proceeding in the court below was for a criminal contempt, and that the judgment requiring the plaintiffs -in error each to pay $500 as remedial compensation for expenses, costs, and attorney’s fees to the. petitioning creditors was beyond the power and jurisdiction of the court,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.