{
  "id": 2594693,
  "name": "Beauregard F. Moseley v. The People, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moseley v. People",
  "decision_date": "1902-04-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "564",
  "last_page": "567",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "101 Ill. App. 564"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "73 Ill. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5318058
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/73/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ill. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 5506,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.582,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.673165364325856e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40618159591543757
    },
    "sha256": "31fa73ebe79995fbb3200ed28dae38fcb58a2c0a0e81ab11cf404ad5f5102dd7",
    "simhash": "1:83878ea0c8310b02",
    "word_count": 967
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:26.777914+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Beauregard F. Moseley v. The People, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe Circuit Court, neither in the decree out of which the contempt proceedings grew nor subsequently, found that it was within the power of appellant to comply with the decree or any portion thereof.\nAppellant has been fined $500 and ordered to be committed to jail, not for anything that he has done, but for a failure to do that which his answer to the rule shows he can not do.\nThis is not an appeal from the decree; that stands and can be enforced like other decrees for the surrender or transfer of personal property.\nA party can not be declared in contempt for the mere failure to comply with a decree or judgment of court.\nContempt is willful and can not arise from mere inability. O\u2019Callaghan v. O\u2019Callaghan, 69 Ill. 554; Dinet v. People, 73 Ill. 183; Rapalje on Contempts, Sec. 137.\nOne, indeed, might be guilty of contempt if he willfully placed himself in a position where he was unable to obey a decree,- but nothing of the kind appears in this case.\nThe answer of appellant, if true, shows that he was not guilty of contempt in failing to comply with the decree of court.\nThe order of the Circuit Court is reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward H. Morris and Edward E. Wilson, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Wm. Annan Taylor, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Beauregard F. Moseley v. The People, etc.\n1. Contempt of Court\u2014For a Mere Failure to Comply with a Decree.\u2014A party can not be legally declared in contempt for' a mere failure to comply with a decree or judgment of court.\nContempt of Court.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1901.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed April 18, 1902.\nThis is an appeal from an order imposing on appellant a fine of $500 for contempt of court and committing him to jail until he should comply with a certain decree of court theretofore entered. The decree of court entered July 3, 1900, was finding \u201c that Moseley and Odom, on May 25, 1897, took forcible possession \u201d of the personal property mentioned in complainant\u2019s bill, and it was \u201c ordered, adjudged and decreed by the court that said defendants, Beauregard F. Moseley and J. O. Odom, surrender and restore to the complainants, within ten days from this date, all of the property in the amended bill of complaint herein described, free and clear of all liens or charges incurred by reason of said wrongful taking.\u201d The property mentioned in the bill was personal property\u2014household goods.\nSeptember 20, 1900, an order of court was entered on Moseley and Odom to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt in failure to obey the decree. To this rule Moseley made answer setting forth the facts as follows:\n\u201c That the property described in said decree was at the time the decree was entered against your respondent in favor of the complainants, Eliza Crowhurst and Charles Crowhurst, to their knowledge, in the possession of one S. H. Gwathney, doing business \u25a0 as the Economical Storage and Express Company at 641 West Sixty-third street, Chicago, Illinois, and that your respondent has no control, business connection or power over the said S. EL Gwathney.\nThat the decree orders the return of property held by a third party\u2014S. BE. Gwathney\u2014whose charges for storage upon said property decreed to be returned amount to $206.51 which the said S. II. Gwathney demands before he will turn said property over to your respondent or to the complainants in the decree.\nThat your respondent has not $206.51 or any other sum of money wherewith he can pay or cause to be paid to the said S. H. Gwathney this amount required as the charges upon said property before its delivery.\nThat your respondent has offered to execute his note to the said S. H. Gwathney for the amount of money due the said S. H. Gwathney for storage upon the property described in the decree, and that the said S. H. Gwathney has refused to accept said note or to deliver said property to your respondent or to the complainants in the decree, and that your respondent is powerless to make him do so.\nThat this respondent is insolvent and without means to comply with the decree in regard to the returning of the property therein described, and that the failure of this respondent to comply with said decree is not willful nor a desire to ignore the mandates of this honorable court.\nRespondent disclaims any intentions to treat the court with disrespect or to willfully disregard its orders, mandates or decree, but states the fact to be that he has been actuated and governed alone by circumstances over which he has no control.\nBeauregard E. Moseley.\u201d\n\u201c Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of September, 1900.\nEdward E. Wilson,\nHotary Public.\u201d\nThe order of commitment recites that the answer of Moseley is found insufficient and that Odom made default, and proceeds as follows :\n\u201c It is therefore adjudged and decreed that a mittimus in attachment issue instanter against said Beauregard F. Moseley and Jeremiah C. Odom for such contempt of court; and the said Moseley being now in court, is found guilty of contempt of this court in not complying with the terms of said decree; and the said Beauregard F. Moseley is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and is committed to the common jail of said county in default of paying such fine until the same shall be paid, and until he shall comply with this order and the terms of said decree, unless sooner discharged by due process of law.\u201d\nEdward H. Morris and Edward E. Wilson, attorneys for appellant.\nWm. Annan Taylor, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0564-01",
  "first_page_order": 590,
  "last_page_order": 593
}