Citation network
Hovey Vs. Elliott
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 24, 1897
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 409 (1897) U.S. Supreme Court Hovey v. ElliottSearch
-
U.S. 409 (1897) Hovey v. ElliottSearch
-
WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court. The facts out of which this controversy grows are fully stated in Hovey v. McDonaldSearch
-
circumstances already stated. This suit culminated in a judgment in favor of Riggs, affirmed by this Court in Hovey v. McDonaldSearch
-
concerning the bonds, and were bound by the result of the judgment rendered as above stated in the suit of Hovey v. McDonaldSearch
-
of Columbia to punish for contempt was restricted by the provisions of section 725 of the Revised Statutes. Hovey v. ElliottSearch
-
strip it of that attribute of justice upon which the exercise of judicial power necessarily depends. In McVeigh v. UnitedSearch
-
And, quoting with approval this language, in Windsor v. McVeighSearch
-
In Capel v. ChildsSearch
-
In Bonaker v. EvansSearch
-
Rex v. ChancellorSearch
-
Rex v. BennSearch
-
Harper v. CarrSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Page 167 U. S. 417 7 T.R. 270, and Rex v. GaskinSearch
-
T.R. 209, and many other cases, concluding with that of Capel v. ChildsSearch
-
justice, courts possess the right to inflict the very wrongs which they were created to prevent. In Galpin v. PageSearch
-
after the giving of prescribed public notice, to order the plaintiff's bill to be taken pro confesso, Davis v. DavisSearch
-
seems that a defendant, though in contempt for violating an injunction, might file his answer in the cause. Robinson v. LordSearch
-
a favor to one in contempt, is clearly illustrated by the whole line of adjudicated cases. The cases of Phillips v. BucksSearch
-
Duke) 1 Vern. 228 (1683), Roper v. RoperSearch
-
Vern. 91 (1688), and Maynard v. PomfretSearch
-
In Roper v. RoperSearch
-
was clearly an application addressed to the discretion of the court, and therefore a matter of favor. In Maynard v. PomfretSearch
-
action taken by the court upon applications addressed to its discretion finds support not only in the case of Phillips v. BucksSearch
-
Bacon's Abridgement, Sequestration, C, the marginal reference being to a case entitled Sands v. DarrellSearch
-
Vowles v. YoungSearch
-
of costs, and also moved to dismiss the bill for want of prosecution. Upon the authority of the passage in Vowles v. YoungSearch
-
aid of the court to dismiss the plaintiff's bill for failure to prosecute the suit. Page 167 U. S. 426 Heyn v. HeynSearch
-
involved purely a question of whether the Chancellor would accord to the defendant a favor or privilege. In Clark v. DewSearch
-
Court in Ireland bearing upon the question are contained in the first volume of Hogan's Reports. Thus, in Anon. v. LordSearch
-
insisted that as the defendant was in contempt, he should not be heard unless he purged his contempt, citing Vowles v. YoungSearch
-
been one of the steps in the process of punishment for contempt for not answering. Thus, in the case of Fitpatrick v. HawkshawSearch
-
answer the bill and an order on the plaintiff to stay the entry of process in the meantime. In the case of Valle v. O'ReillySearch
-
The cases of Howard v. NewmanSearch
-
Moll. 221, and Odell v. HartSearch
-
Moll. 492, were decided by the Lord Chancellor in 1828. In Howard v. NewmanSearch
-
answer might be stricken from the files and the case be decided as though no answer had ever been filed. In Odell v. HartSearch
-
It was objected that the defendant, being de facto in contempt, ought to appear in vinculis, citing Vowles v. YoungSearch
-
court for an order except to set aside for irregularity the order adjudging him guilty of contempt. In Ricketts v. MorningtonSearch
-
eighth ordinance of Lord Bacon. On the authority of the Page 167 U. S. 429 ordinance and the case of Vowles v. YoungSearch
-
Barker v. DawsonSearch
-
and Parry v. PerrymanSearch
-
King v. BryantSearch
-
pro confesso and directing an account, the account may be prosecuted ex parte. The case of Dominicetti v. LattiSearch
-
In Wilson v. BatesSearch
-
contempt could not take any proceedings in the cause, and cited the seventy-eighth ordinance of Lord Bacon and Vowles v. YoungSearch
-
for, and that the vice chancellor was right in permitting the plaintiff to proceed in the cause. In Bickford v. SkewesSearch
-
defendant, though in contempt, was conceded to be entitled to participate in the trial of the cause. In Everett v. PrythergchSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial