Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Company
221 U.S. 418 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Contempt proceedings initiated by a private party to obtain remedial relief are civil in nature, and any punishment imposed must be remedial, such as a coercive or compensatory fine. A punitive, fixed-term prison sentence is a criminal penalty that cannot be imposed in a civil contempt proceeding, and such a proceeding becomes moot when the underlying civil litigation is settled.
Facts:
- The American Federation of Labor, led by Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell, and Frank Morrison, organized a boycott against the Bucks Stove & Range Company.
- As part of the boycott, the union published the company's name on 'Unfair' and 'We don’t patronize' lists in its official publications, causing damage to the company's business.
- A court issued an injunction ordering the union and its leaders to stop the boycott, including publishing the company's name on such lists.
- After the injunction was issued, Gompers, Mitchell, and Morrison continued to make publications that violated the court's order.
- During the course of the litigation, the underlying dispute between the Bucks Stove & Range Company and the American Federation of Labor was completely settled by the parties.
Procedural Posture:
- Bucks Stove & Range Company filed an equity suit in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (a trial court) against the American Federation of Labor and its leaders.
- The trial court issued an injunction restraining the defendants from boycotting the complainant.
- The Bucks Stove & Range Company filed a petition in the same cause, alleging the defendants had violated the injunction and were in contempt of court.
- The trial court found defendants Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell, and Frank Morrison guilty of contempt and sentenced them to fixed prison terms of twelve, nine, and six months, respectively.
- The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendants then petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a punitive, fixed-term prison sentence, imposed in a contempt proceeding initiated and tried as part of a private party's civil equity suit, constitute a valid punishment for civil contempt?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Lamar
No. A fixed-term prison sentence is a punitive punishment appropriate for criminal contempt and cannot be imposed in a proceeding that was initiated and tried as a private civil contempt action. The court distinguished between civil and criminal contempt based on the character and purpose of the punishment. Civil contempt is remedial, intended to either coerce the defendant into compliance or compensate the complainant for losses sustained; the defendant 'carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket' and can end the sentence by complying. Criminal contempt is punitive, intended to vindicate the authority of the court through a fixed sentence for a past offense. In this case, the proceeding was instituted by the private complainant (Bucks Stove) as part of the original equity suit, seeking relief 'as the nature of its case may require,' making it a civil proceeding. However, the court imposed fixed prison sentences—a punishment that was purely punitive and offered no remedy to the complainant. This created a fatal variance between the civil nature of the proceeding and the criminal nature of the punishment. Furthermore, because the contempt action was a dependent part of the main civil case, it became moot and was terminated when the parties settled the underlying lawsuit.
Analysis:
This case is a cornerstone of contempt law, establishing the fundamental distinction between civil and criminal contempt. It clarifies that the nature of the proceeding dictates the available remedies, thereby protecting defendants from being subjected to criminal penalties without the corresponding constitutional safeguards, such as the presumption of innocence and the right against self-incrimination. The decision prevents private litigants from using civil contempt as a tool for purely punitive ends. It also solidifies the principle that a civil contempt proceeding is ancillary to the main case and cannot survive once the underlying dispute is resolved.
Unlock the full brief for Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Company