Hobbs Mfg. Co. v. Gooding

First Circuit

Hobbs Mfg. Co. v. Gooding

113 F. 615, 51 C.C.A. 335, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 3978

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedJanuary 24, 1902

DocketNo. 366

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 113 F. 615 (Hobbs Mfg. Co. v. Gooding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hobbs Mfg. Co. v. Gooding, 113 F. 615, 51 C.C.A. 335, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 3978 (1st Cir. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

ALDRICH, District Judge.

Upon this petition for relief against what is claimed to be an unwarrantable use of the opinion of this court, after decision and before mandate was handed down, we need not examine or discuss the question of jurisdiction. Neither need we discuss the question of the power, nor the extent of the power, of this court in respect to punishment for contempt in misuse or abuse of its process. Nor is the power of the court over its own process, as between the parties, necessarily controlled by the rule of noninterference with press publications as to disputed rights and claims of different parties as to the scope of its decisions. It is probably true that, in a case of honest disagreement or misunderstanding as to the true import of a decision, or in an extreme case of abuse or misuse of process for the purpose of impairing or destroying rights sought to be established by the court through its decision, the court may proceed summarily in reference thereto. Such power, however, would be exercised with reluctance, and ordinarily only in an extreme or clear case.

The circular letter complained of sets out more than the court decided, but an examination of the opinion di .closes no ambiguity or uncertainty as to what was decided; and, on the whole, we do not think the facts set out in the petition constitute a case of such wrongdoing as calls for our interference. At the most, it was an extravagant claim by a party as to the scope of the decision, based upon his interpretation of the opinion which this court had handed down.

Petition denied.

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

ALDRICH, District Judge.

Upon this petition for relief against what is claimed to be an unwarrantable use of the opinion of this court, after decision and before mandate was handed down, we need not examine or discuss the question of jurisdiction. Neither need we discuss the question of the power, nor the extent of the power, of this court in respect to punishment for contempt in misuse or abuse of its process. Nor is the power of the court over its own process, as between the parties, necessarily controlled by the rule of noninterference with press publications as to disputed rights and claims of different parties as to the scope of its decisions. It is probably true that, in a case of honest disagreement or misunderstanding as to the true import of a decision, or in an extreme case of abuse or misuse of process for the purpose of impairing or destroying rights sought to be established by the court through its decision, the court may proceed summarily in reference thereto. Such power, however, would be exercised with reluctance, and ordinarily only in an extreme or clear case.

The circular letter complained of sets out more than the court decided, but an examination of the opinion di .closes no ambiguity or uncertainty as to what was decided; and, on the whole, we do not think the facts set out in the petition constitute a case of such wrongdoing as calls for our interference. At the most, it was an extravagant claim by a party as to the scope of the decision, based upon his interpretation of the opinion which this court had handed down.

Petition denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 F. 615, 51 C.C.A. 335, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 3978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hobbs-mfg-co-v-gooding-ca1-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack