SALVAGE PROCESS CORPORATION v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corporation

Second Circuit

SALVAGE PROCESS CORPORATION v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corporation

86 F.2d 727, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 103, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3839

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 7, 1936

Docket198

StatusPublished

Cited by48 cases

This text of 86 F.2d 727 (SALVAGE PROCESS CORPORATION v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

SALVAGE PROCESS CORPORATION v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corporation, 86 F.2d 727, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 103, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3839 (2d Cir. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is a companion to Salvage Process Corporation et al. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corporation (C.C.A.) 86 F.(2d) 725, handed down herewith. The appeal is from an order fining the defendant for the plaintiffs’ expenses in prosecuting a contempt of the temporary injunction there considered. After that decree had passed, the defendant made some slight changes in its method and apparatus which it thought would avoid infringement, but which we need not consider. It is indeed abundantly well settled that a defendant may not dispute the validity of an injunction upon a motion to punish him for contempt. Brougham v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 205 F. 857 (C.C.A. 2); McCann v. New York Stock Exchange, 80 F.(2d) 211 (C.C.A.2). This is as true of civil, as of criminal, contempts; the decree creates a right whose violation results in a liability for indemnity. A conviction for criminal contempt may indeed survive the reversal of the decree disobeyed ; the punishment is to vindicate the court’s authority which has been equally flouted whether or not the command was right.. But the same cannot be true of civil contempts, which are only remedial. It is true that the reversal of the decree does not retroactively obliterate the past existence of the violation; yet on the other hand it does more than destroy the future sanction of the decree. It adjudges that it never should have passed; that the right which it affected to create was no right at all. To let the' liability stand for past contumacy would be to give the plaintiff a remedy .not for a right but for a wrong, which the law should not do. Worden v. Searls, 121 U.S. 14, 7 S.Ct. 814, 30 L.Ed. 853; In re Fanning, 40 Minn. 4, 41 N.W. 1076; Red River Potato Growers’ Assoc. v. Bernardy, 128 Minn. 153, 150 N. W. 383; Pelzer v. Hughes, 27 S.C. 408, 3 S.E. 781; Smith v. McQuade, 59 Hun, 622. 13 N.Y.S. 63 (Gen. Term).

Order reversed; motion denied.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is a companion to Salvage Process Corporation et al. v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corporation (C.C.A.) 86 F.(2d) 725, handed down herewith. The appeal is from an order fining the defendant for the plaintiffs’ expenses in prosecuting a contempt of the temporary injunction there considered. After that decree had passed, the defendant made some slight changes in its method and apparatus which it thought would avoid infringement, but which we need not consider. It is indeed abundantly well settled that a defendant may not dispute the validity of an injunction upon a motion to punish him for contempt. Brougham v. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co., 205 F. 857 (C.C.A. 2); McCann v. New York Stock Exchange, 80 F.(2d) 211 (C.C.A.2). This is as true of civil, as of criminal, contempts; the decree creates a right whose violation results in a liability for indemnity. A conviction for criminal contempt may indeed survive the reversal of the decree disobeyed ; the punishment is to vindicate the court’s authority which has been equally flouted whether or not the command was right.. But the same cannot be true of civil contempts, which are only remedial. It is true that the reversal of the decree does not retroactively obliterate the past existence of the violation; yet on the other hand it does more than destroy the future sanction of the decree. It adjudges that it never should have passed; that the right which it affected to create was no right at all. To let the' liability stand for past contumacy would be to give the plaintiff a remedy .not for a right but for a wrong, which the law should not do. Worden v. Searls, 121 U.S. 14, 7 S.Ct. 814, 30 L.Ed. 853; In re Fanning, 40 Minn. 4, 41 N.W. 1076; Red River Potato Growers’ Assoc. v. Bernardy, 128 Minn. 153, 150 N. W. 383; Pelzer v. Hughes, 27 S.C. 408, 3 S.E. 781; Smith v. McQuade, 59 Hun, 622. 13 N.Y.S. 63 (Gen. Term).

Order reversed; motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 F.2d 727, 32 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 103, 1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 3839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvage-process-corporation-v-acme-tank-cleaning-process-corporation-ca2-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack