Hayes v. Fischer

102 U.S. 121, 12 Otto 121, 26 L. Ed. 95, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2009
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 8, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 102 U.S. 121 (Hayes v. Fischer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hayes v. Fischer, 102 U.S. 121, 12 Otto 121, 26 L. Ed. 95, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2009 (1880).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justíce W41TE

delivered the opinion of the court.

Fischer, the defendant in error, brought a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to restrain Hayes, the plaintiff in error, from using a certain patented device. In this suit an interlocutory injunction was granted. Complaint having been made .against Hayes for a violation of this injunction, proceedings were instituted against him for contempt, which resulted in an' order by the court that he pay the clerk $l,389i99 as a fine, and that he stand committed until the order was obeyéd. To reverse this order, Hayes sued out this writ of error, which Fischer now moves to dismiss, on the ground that such proceedings in the Circuit Court cannot be re-examined here.

If the order complained of is to be treated as part of what was done in the original suit, it cannot be brought here for review by writ. óf error. Errors in equity suits can only be corrected in this court on appeal, and that after a final.decree. This order, if part of the proceedings’ in the suit, was interlocutory only.

If the proceeding below, being for contempt, was independent of and separate from the original suit, it cannot be re-examined here either by writ of error or appeal. This was decided more than fifty years ago in Ex parte Kearney (7 Wheat. 38), and the rule, then established was followed as late as New Orleans v. Steamship Company, 20 Wall. 387.

It follows that we have no jurisdiction.

Motion granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig
106 F.3d 165 (Seventh Circuit, 1997)
Nilva v. United States
352 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court, 1957)
United States ex rel. Sutton v. Mulcahy
169 F.2d 94 (Second Circuit, 1948)
Fox v. Capital Co.
299 U.S. 105 (Supreme Court, 1936)
Cheney v. Richards
155 A. 642 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1931)
Commissioner of Banks v. Tremont Trust Co.
166 N.E. 848 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1929)
In re González
22 P.R. 26 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1915)
Oronoz v. Montalvo
21 P.R. 331 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1914)
Re Gompers
40 App. D.C. 293 (D.C. Circuit, 1913)
Swift Fertilizer Works v. Okolona Cotton Oil Co.
186 F. 158 (Fifth Circuit, 1911)
Costilla Land & Investment Co. v. Allen
110 P. 847 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1910)
Kelley v. McCombs
1909 OK 111 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1909)
Hammond Lumber Co. v. Sailors' Union of Pacific
167 F. 809 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1909)
Matter of Christensen Engineering Co.
194 U.S. 458 (Supreme Court, 1904)
Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co.
194 U.S. 324 (Supreme Court, 1904)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 U.S. 121, 12 Otto 121, 26 L. Ed. 95, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-fischer-scotus-1880.