WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.
S. R. and M. B. Morgan appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas holding them guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing them to six months in jail.
[831]*831The record discloses that the United States District Attorney applied to the District Judge then presiding in said court for direction to file information charging the appellants with criminal contempt of the court sitting in bankruptcy, and the prosecution herein was upon the verified information filed pursuant to the direction given by the court. It accused the appellants of conspiring to obtain and obtaining money belonging to two bankrupt estates in course of administration, by false representations and by deceit practiced upon the trustee and referee in bankruptcy, “in defiance of the authority and dignity and in contempt of said court and the referee.”
The several returns made by the appellants admitted the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings in the court but denied the accusations of wrongdoing. Both of the appellants testified in their own behalf, but there was substantial testimony to support the material allegations of the information which is copied in the footnote.1
[832]*832The appellants contended before the trial court, and novy to this court, that the facts set forth in the information do not present a contempt of the authority [834]*834of the court which the court was empowered to try by jury or to punish by imprisonment. They insist that the act of 1831, now 28 U.S.C.A. § 3852, is the law which specifies the cases in which such punishment for contempt may be imposed by the United States District Courts and that the acts charged against them are not within the terms of that law. The act was expounded by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510, 86 U.S. 505, 22 L.Ed. 205, as follows: “The power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of the judgments, orders, and writs of the courts, and consequently to the due administration of justice. The moment the courts of the United States were called into existence and invested with jurisdiction over any subject, they became possessed of this power. But the power has been limited and defined by the Act of Congress of March 2d, 1831. The act, in terms, applies to all courts; whether it can be held to limit the authority of the Supreme Court, which derives its existence and powers from the Constitution, may perhaps be a matter of doubt. But that it applies to the Circuit and District Courts, there can be no question. These courts were created by act of Congress. Their powers and duties depend upon the act calling them into existence, or subsequent acts extending or limiting their jurisdiction. The act of 1831 is, therefore, to them the law specifying the cases in which summary punishment for contempts may be inflicted. It limits the power of these courts in this respect to three classes of cases: 1st, where there has been misbehavior of a person in the presence of the courts, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; 2d, where there has been misbehavior of any officer of the courts in his official transactions; and, 3d, where there has been disobedience or resistance by any officer, party, juror, witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the courts. As thus seen the power of these courts in the punishments of con-tempts can only be exercised to insure or[835]*835der and decorum in their presence, to secure faithfulness on the part of their officers in their official transactions, and to enforce obedience to their lawful orders, judgments, and processes.”
It does not appear that the Supreme Court has ever receded from the interpretation of the act so announced in 1873. Bearing it in mind, we turn to the -information herein and we find therein no charge against appellants that they obstructed the administration of justice, or that they misbehaved as officers of the court in any official transactions. Neither is there any charge that they disobeyed or resisted any particular lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of said court set out or referred to in the information.
The gist of the accusation contained in the information was stated by the trial court in its instructions to the jury as follows: “Unless you are convinced from all the testimony in this case adduced, and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants wrongfully, knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently made material misrepresentations to W. D. Dickinson, Trustee in Bankruptcy, with reference to the making of the contracts between him and the Oklahoma Petroleum Products Company, and the Pure Oil Company and the Oklahoma Petroleum Products Company, or concealed material facts in respect to the making of these contracts and the terms set out in said contracts, and that W. D. Dickinson, Trustee, relied upon said fraudulent, material misrepresentations and concealments, and that the said Dickinson, Trustee, was mislead and deceived thereby and that, as a result of said misrepresentations and concealments the bankrupt estates were depleted of a sum of money belonging to said bankrupt estates under the control of W. D. Dickinson, Trustee, then your verdict will be for the defendants, but if you find that said fraudulent, material misrepresentations and concealments were made and as a result thereof said estates were depleted of the said ten thousand dollars, or any part thereof, and the defendants, one or both of them, obtained said money, then you will find for the governmént.”
- In the light of this instruction, the verdict of the jury is a finding that the appellants did wrongfully procure the trustee in bankruptcy to pay out the money of the estate by means of deceit and false representations made to the trustee and the referee. The appeal, therefore, presents the question, whether such acts are within the contempt statute as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In support of their contention that they are not, the appellants rely strongly upon the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit, in Re Probst, 205 F. 512, 513, where it appeared that the bankrupt had appropriated a part of the bankrupt estate and converted it to his own use and spent it for living expenses. The court said:
“Generally speaking the misappropriation and dissipation by the bankrupt of funds in custody of the court which he has promised to hold subject to its order might fairly be considered a contempt of court. The difficulty here, however, is that the power of the federal District Courts to punish contempts has been so circumscribed by Congress that it can be exercised only in the cases enumerated in section 725, Rev.Stat.U.S.(U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 583). These cases are:
“ ‘Misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, j.uror, witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts.’
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.
S. R. and M. B. Morgan appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of the United States District Court for the Western Division of the Eastern District of Arkansas holding them guilty of criminal contempt and sentencing them to six months in jail.
[831]*831The record discloses that the United States District Attorney applied to the District Judge then presiding in said court for direction to file information charging the appellants with criminal contempt of the court sitting in bankruptcy, and the prosecution herein was upon the verified information filed pursuant to the direction given by the court. It accused the appellants of conspiring to obtain and obtaining money belonging to two bankrupt estates in course of administration, by false representations and by deceit practiced upon the trustee and referee in bankruptcy, “in defiance of the authority and dignity and in contempt of said court and the referee.”
The several returns made by the appellants admitted the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings in the court but denied the accusations of wrongdoing. Both of the appellants testified in their own behalf, but there was substantial testimony to support the material allegations of the information which is copied in the footnote.1
[832]*832The appellants contended before the trial court, and novy to this court, that the facts set forth in the information do not present a contempt of the authority [834]*834of the court which the court was empowered to try by jury or to punish by imprisonment. They insist that the act of 1831, now 28 U.S.C.A. § 3852, is the law which specifies the cases in which such punishment for contempt may be imposed by the United States District Courts and that the acts charged against them are not within the terms of that law. The act was expounded by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510, 86 U.S. 505, 22 L.Ed. 205, as follows: “The power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts; its existence is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings, and to the enforcement of the judgments, orders, and writs of the courts, and consequently to the due administration of justice. The moment the courts of the United States were called into existence and invested with jurisdiction over any subject, they became possessed of this power. But the power has been limited and defined by the Act of Congress of March 2d, 1831. The act, in terms, applies to all courts; whether it can be held to limit the authority of the Supreme Court, which derives its existence and powers from the Constitution, may perhaps be a matter of doubt. But that it applies to the Circuit and District Courts, there can be no question. These courts were created by act of Congress. Their powers and duties depend upon the act calling them into existence, or subsequent acts extending or limiting their jurisdiction. The act of 1831 is, therefore, to them the law specifying the cases in which summary punishment for contempts may be inflicted. It limits the power of these courts in this respect to three classes of cases: 1st, where there has been misbehavior of a person in the presence of the courts, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; 2d, where there has been misbehavior of any officer of the courts in his official transactions; and, 3d, where there has been disobedience or resistance by any officer, party, juror, witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the courts. As thus seen the power of these courts in the punishments of con-tempts can only be exercised to insure or[835]*835der and decorum in their presence, to secure faithfulness on the part of their officers in their official transactions, and to enforce obedience to their lawful orders, judgments, and processes.”
It does not appear that the Supreme Court has ever receded from the interpretation of the act so announced in 1873. Bearing it in mind, we turn to the -information herein and we find therein no charge against appellants that they obstructed the administration of justice, or that they misbehaved as officers of the court in any official transactions. Neither is there any charge that they disobeyed or resisted any particular lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of said court set out or referred to in the information.
The gist of the accusation contained in the information was stated by the trial court in its instructions to the jury as follows: “Unless you are convinced from all the testimony in this case adduced, and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendants wrongfully, knowingly, intentionally and fraudulently made material misrepresentations to W. D. Dickinson, Trustee in Bankruptcy, with reference to the making of the contracts between him and the Oklahoma Petroleum Products Company, and the Pure Oil Company and the Oklahoma Petroleum Products Company, or concealed material facts in respect to the making of these contracts and the terms set out in said contracts, and that W. D. Dickinson, Trustee, relied upon said fraudulent, material misrepresentations and concealments, and that the said Dickinson, Trustee, was mislead and deceived thereby and that, as a result of said misrepresentations and concealments the bankrupt estates were depleted of a sum of money belonging to said bankrupt estates under the control of W. D. Dickinson, Trustee, then your verdict will be for the defendants, but if you find that said fraudulent, material misrepresentations and concealments were made and as a result thereof said estates were depleted of the said ten thousand dollars, or any part thereof, and the defendants, one or both of them, obtained said money, then you will find for the governmént.”
- In the light of this instruction, the verdict of the jury is a finding that the appellants did wrongfully procure the trustee in bankruptcy to pay out the money of the estate by means of deceit and false representations made to the trustee and the referee. The appeal, therefore, presents the question, whether such acts are within the contempt statute as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In support of their contention that they are not, the appellants rely strongly upon the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Second Circuit, in Re Probst, 205 F. 512, 513, where it appeared that the bankrupt had appropriated a part of the bankrupt estate and converted it to his own use and spent it for living expenses. The court said:
“Generally speaking the misappropriation and dissipation by the bankrupt of funds in custody of the court which he has promised to hold subject to its order might fairly be considered a contempt of court. The difficulty here, however, is that the power of the federal District Courts to punish contempts has been so circumscribed by Congress that it can be exercised only in the cases enumerated in section 725, Rev.Stat.U.S.(U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 583). These cases are:
“ ‘Misbehavior of any person in their presence, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any such officer, or by any party, j.uror, witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the said courts.’
“It seems to us that the bankrupt’s misappropriation of the money in his hands is not within the first of these clauses, ‘misbehavior in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice.’ He is not an ‘officer of the court’ who has misbehaved in his official transactions. Our attention has been called to no writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the court which he has disobeyed. Had an order been made directing him to pay the amount of the misappropriated money-into the registry of the court, and he had disobeyed such order, he would be within the provisions of the section; but on the record presented here we cannot find authority for the entry of the order sought to be reviewed. This may be a highly technical ruling; but where Congress has been so industrious to restrict the natural inherent powers of a federal court, scrupulous attention to the limitations it has imposed would seem to be the proper course.”
[836]*836That we are in accord with the quoted declaration of the court, as to our duty' to pay scrupulous attention to the limitation imposed by Congress upon the power of the court to punish for contempt, appears from the following expression of this court in Wilson v. United States, 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 215, 218: “Section 385 is a limitation on the power of the inferior federal courts to punish for contempt, Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 22 L.Ed. 205; and the power must be exercised within the restrictions therein named.”
The prosecution here has relied very largely upon the opinion of this court in Clay v. Waters, 8 Cir., 178 F. 385, 395, 21 Ann.Cas. 897. In that case the accused acted in collusion with the bankrupt to prevent a large sum of the bankrupt's money from getting into the hands of the trustee in bankruptcy, and withdrew the money and its proceeds beyond the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. This court sustained the order made by the trial court finding the accused guilty of contempt and that he be imprisoned for a certain period, or until he made restitution. The court decided that the acts of the accused constituted a violation of the order and command of the bankrupt court which is embodied by law in the adjudication in bankruptcy. The court said, among other things: “The seizure of the money of the bankrupt after the adjudication and its concealment by the defendant in his name in real estate and promissory notes and his transfer of this real and personal property to innocent third parties to withdraw it from the jurisdiction of the court below and to defeat its coming decree after he was notified by the commencement of the suit to turn it over to the trustee were repeated disobediences and resistances of the injunction and command of the court, and constituted contempts of that court well within the terms of section 725, Rev.St.”
But we are not persuaded that the doctrine of Clay v. Waters ought to be extended to the facts presented by the information in this case. These appellants did not seize the bankrupt estate or prevent the trustee from taking possession and control of it, in obedience to the order of adjudication in bankruptcy, as was done by the accused in the Clay Case. These appellants recognized the right of the trustee and his possession and control of the property pursuant to the order of adjudication, and they dealt with him as the officer of the court, and the rightful custodian of the bankrupt estate. But they practiced a deception and fraud upon the trustee in the course of the business which the trustee was carrying on. Their offense was against the peace and dignity of the government rather than disobedience to the particular injunction and command of the order of adjudication in bankruptcy. See In re Payman, D.C.N.Y, 36 F.2d 823; Wilson v. U. S., 8 Cir, 26 F.2d 215, 218; U. S. v. Mathews, D.C.N.Y, 1 F.Supp. 562, 563. No other order of the bankruptcy court concerning the control, conduct, or operation of the bankrupt properties is alleged to have been contravened by appellants. As it appeared that the appellants were bankrupt, it was, perhaps, considered useless to obtain orders or pursue other- remedies against them. But we are not convinced that the acts alleged against them constituted disobedience to any lawful order of the court, and the judgment is therefore reversed.