The Cape May and Schellinger's Landing Railroad Co. v. Johnson
Unknown Reporter Information (1882)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party with actual knowledge of a court order is bound to obey it and can be held in contempt for its violation, even if they have not been formally served with the order, so long as the notice comes from a credible source and clearly states the prohibited conduct.
Facts:
- On June 20, 1881, a court issued an order directing the city council of Cape May to desist and refrain from passing a specific ordinance.
- The council was scheduled to meet that evening, and the distance from the court made formal, in-person service of the order impossible before the meeting.
- Before the council convened, its president received a telegram from the complainants' counsel informing him of the court's order, and the president read this telegram to the council in open meeting.
- During the same meeting, a special messenger sent by the complainants also verbally notified the council of the order.
- The city council consulted its own counsel, who advised them they could disregard the notice.
- The following day, on June 21, the city council passed the prohibited ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- Complainants applied to the court for an order to prevent the city council of Cape May from passing a specific ordinance.
- On June 20, 1881, the court issued an ex parte order directing the city council to desist from passing the ordinance and to show cause at a later date why a preliminary injunction should not be granted.
- After the city council passed the ordinance in defiance of the order, the complainants instituted a proceeding for contempt against the council members.
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 party's informal but credible notice of a court order, such as through a telegram, constitute sufficient knowledge to hold them in contempt for disobeying that order?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Fleet, V. C.
Yes. A party's informal but credible notice of a court order is sufficient to hold them in contempt for disobedience. Formal service is not required for a contempt charge when a party has actual knowledge of the court's command. The court reasoned that an order must be obeyed while it remains in force, and its validity cannot be challenged through disobedience. The key question is whether the defendants knew of the order's existence, not how they were notified. Citing precedent, the court found that notice is sufficient if it comes from a credible source and clearly informs the party of the prohibited act. The telegram from counsel and the notice from a messenger met this standard, giving the council sufficient knowledge. Relying on their own counsel's erroneous advice to disregard the order provides neither a justification nor an excuse for their contempt.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the authority of a court order attaches upon a party's actual knowledge, not merely upon completion of formal procedural service. It prevents parties from evading court mandates by exploiting delays in official service, thereby upholding the court's power to enforce its decrees effectively and immediately. The ruling emphasizes the supremacy of court orders and the duty of obedience, placing the burden on the notified party to seek modification through proper channels rather than resorting to disobedience. This prioritizes substance (actual knowledge) over procedural formality (service of process) in the context of contempt.
Unlock the full brief for The Cape May and Schellinger's Landing Railroad Co. v. Johnson