Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christiansen Engineering Co.

S.D. New York

Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christiansen Engineering Co.

123 F. 632, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4929

DecidedMarch 21, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 123 F. 632 (Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christiansen Engineering Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Westinghouse Air Brake Co. v. Christiansen Engineering Co., 123 F. 632, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4929 (S.D.N.Y. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

There have been conflicting decisions by the Circuit Court of Appeals as to the review of an order punishing for contempt in disobedience of an injunction (Nassau Electric Co. v. Sprague Co., 95 Fed. 415, 37 C. C. A. 146; Gould v. Sessions, 67 Fed. 163, 14 C. C. A. 366); but the action of the court in the most recent case before it (October term, 1900) indicates that the rule laid down in the case of Gould v. Sessions is the one which will be followed. In this last case an interlocutory decree had been granted with an injunction, and the defendant had been fined for violating the injunction. Upon a writ of error the court reviewed the order on the [633]*633merits and affirmed it. Cary Co. v. Acme Co., 108 Fed. 873, 48 C. C. A. 118.

Under these circumstances, the application to suspend the operation of the order imposing fine until final hearing is denied. The order, however, is modified by directing that the amount of fine which it directs shall be paid to the United States, shall be deposited with the clerk of the court, to be retained by him until final disposition of the case.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

There have been conflicting decisions by the Circuit Court of Appeals as to the review of an order punishing for contempt in disobedience of an injunction (Nassau Electric Co. v. Sprague Co., 95 Fed. 415, 37 C. C. A. 146; Gould v. Sessions, 67 Fed. 163, 14 C. C. A. 366); but the action of the court in the most recent case before it (October term, 1900) indicates that the rule laid down in the case of Gould v. Sessions is the one which will be followed. In this last case an interlocutory decree had been granted with an injunction, and the defendant had been fined for violating the injunction. Upon a writ of error the court reviewed the order on the [633]*633merits and affirmed it. Cary Co. v. Acme Co., 108 Fed. 873, 48 C. C. A. 118.

Under these circumstances, the application to suspend the operation of the order imposing fine until final hearing is denied. The order, however, is modified by directing that the amount of fine which it directs shall be paid to the United States, shall be deposited with the clerk of the court, to be retained by him until final disposition of the case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 F. 632, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westinghouse-air-brake-co-v-christiansen-engineering-co-nysd-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack