Hanley

(after stating the facts as above). [1] The appellee moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the order adjudging the appellant guilty of contempt, being punitive and not compensatory, cannot be reviewed in this court by appeal, but must be brought here by writ of error. We find no merit in the motion. The judgment is not primarily punitive in its nature, but it is a judgment in a civil and remedial proceeding, instituted to protect and enforce private rights, and to that end to compel obedience of the decree of the court. It is brought for the violation of the injunction of a final decree, and under all the decisions it is properly reviewable on appeal. Matter of Christensen Engineering Co., 194 U. S. 458 , 24 Sup. Ct. 729, 48 L. Ed. 1072 ; Worden v. Searls, 121 U. S. 14 , 7 Sup. Ct. 814, 30 L. Ed. 853 ; Heller v. National Waistband Co., 168 Fed. 249 , 93 C. C. A. 551 ; Clay v. Waters, 178 Fed. 385 , 101 C. C. A. 645 , 21 Ann. Cas. 897.

[2-4] We are unable to see that the rights of the appellant as lessee of Altschul of section 31 on the west fork were in any way involved in the original suit. The appellant’s dams and ditches on the east fork were all described in the…