O'NEAL
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1903-06-01
No. 534
190 U.S. 36 Supreme Court of the United States (1903) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 47 L. Ed. 945 · 23 S. Ct. 776 · SCDB 1902-153 · 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1538
Cited by 22 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

A federal district court in Florida convicted W. C. O'Neal of contempt of court for assaulting a bankruptcy trustee and sentenced him to sixty days imprisonment. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of error, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the contempt conviction because the defendant's challenge went to the merits of whether the facts constituted contempt rather than to the court's jurisdiction, and because contempt judgments in criminal cases are not reviewable on direct error under the Judiciary Act of 1891.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a proceeding in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, commenced by the filing of an affidavit of Greenhut, a trustee in bankruptcy, charging W. C. O’Neal with contempt of court in committing an assault upon him.

A rule' to show cause was entered and served on O’Neal, to which he filed a demurrer, assigning as grounds that the affidavit did not show that respondent had. committed any offence of which the court had jurisdiction, or had done any act punishable by the court as a contempt thereof; or had committed any act of contempt against the court.

The demurrer was overruled and O’Neal answered.. Hearing ‘was had on the rule and answer, and evidence introduced on both sides, and the court found respondent guilty of the acts and things set forth in the affidavit, and that they constituted a contempt of court, and thereupon sentenced O’Neal to imprisonment in the county jail at Pensacola, Florida, for the term of sixty days.

The District Oourt certified the question of its jurisdiction for decision, and a writ of error directly from this court was. allowed on the assumption that the case came within the first of the six classes of cases enumerated in section 5 of the judiciary act of March 3, 1891. That class embraces cases “ in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue,” that is, where the power of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States to hear and determine is denied. Smith v. McKay, 161 U. S. 355; Vance v. Vandercook Company, (No. 2,) 170 U. S. 468, 472; Mexican Central Railway Company v. Eckman, 187 U. S. 429, 432.

But the question here is asserted in the certificate to be whether the District Court had “ jurisdiction to try and punish the' said defendant for contempt thereof, upon the facts and for the. causes stated in said rule and affidavit.”

Jurisdiction over the person and jurisdiction over the subject matter of contempts were not challenged. The charge was the commission of an-assault on ah officer of the court for the purpose of' preventing-'-the discharge of his duties as such officer, and the contention was 'that on the facts no case of contempt was made out. ^

In other words, the contention was addressed to the merits of the case and not to the jurisdiction of the co^rt. An erroneous conclusion in that regard can only be reviewed on appeal or error, or in such appropriate way as may be provided. Louisville Trust Company v. Comingor, 184 U. S. 18, 26; Ex parte Gordon, 104 U. S. 515.

And while proceedings in contempt may be said to be sui generis, the present judgment is in effect a judgment in a criminal case, over which this court has no jurisdiction on error. Section 5, act on March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826, c. 517, as amended by the act of January 20, 1897, 29 Stat. 492, c. 68; Chetwood’s Case, 165 U. S. 443, 462; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101, 105; Cary Manufacturing Company v. Acme Flexible Clasp Company, 187 U. S. 427, 428.

Writ of error dismissed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (12 total)

  • Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1968)
    …or an acceptable construction of the Constitution. Cf. Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 350 (1898). See also New Orleans v. The Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 387, 392 (1874) (“[c]ontempt of court is a specific criminal offence”); O’Neal v. United States, 190 U. S. 36, 38 (1903) (an adjudication for contempt is “in effect a judgment in a criminal case”); Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 336 (1904) (that criminal contempt proceedings are “criminal in their nature has been constantly affirmed”); Michae…
  • Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1904)
    …ntempt for being concerned in suing out the writs of error and directing them, or either of them, to refrain from prosecuting the one writ in the name of the bank, arid to dismiss the other, may be revised and annulled.” In O’Neal v. United States, 190 U. S. 36, in which an order of the District Court punishing for contempt was brought here on writ of error, we said (p. 38): “While proceedings in contempt may be said to be sui generis, the present judgment is in effect a judgment in a criminal case, over…
  • Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1918)
    …tion for a criminal, although summary, contempt is-for the purposes of our reviewing power a matter of criminal law not within our jurisdiction on error. Cary Manufacturing Co. v. Acme Flexible Clasp Co., 187 U. S. 427, 428; O’Neal v. United States, 190 U. S. 36, 38; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey [*411] Co., 194 U. S. 324, 335; In re Merchants' Stock & Grain Co., 223 U. S. 639; Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, 606. But this does not relieve us from the duty of exerting jurisdiction, as we are of opinion…

Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw