¶1In this case the order committing for contempt had a double aspect: First, it was in the nature of a remedy to the party to enforce payment of the alimony; second, it was also punitive, or merely in punishment of the offence of contempt. In the first aspect it was only for the private benefit of the party; in the second, only to assert and vindicate the authority of the court, and so far its purpose was public. So far as it was private or remedial, — that is, so far as it required payment of money to the other party, — its force and life fell with the entry of judgment of dismissal; but, so far as it imposed a fine, the entry of judgment did not affect it. It follows that the petitioner is not entitled to a discharge until he has paid the *5fine. On payment of that, the remainder of the order being no longer in force, of course he will be entitled to a discharge. Let the petitioner be remanded.
40 Minn. 4
In re Fanning
Decided January 4, 1889
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1889-01-04
Habeas Corpus and Certiorari, the writs issuing from this court January 2, 1889, returnable January 4th, and the facts being as follows: The petitioner, E. F. Fanning, sued his wife in the district court for Hennepin county, for divorce for cruelty. In her answer she sought a divorce on the same ground. In October, 1887, the petitioner was ordered to pay his wife alimony pendente lite, at a specified rate per week.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““In this case the order committing for contempt had a double aspect: First, it was in the nature of a remedy to the party to enforce payment of the alimony; second, it was also punitive, or merely in punishment of the offence of contempt. In the first aspect it was only for the private benefit of the party; in the second, only to assert and vindicate the authority of the court, and so far its purpose was public. So far as it was private or remedial,—that is, so far as it required payment of money to the other party,—its force and life fell with the entry of judgment of dismissal; but, so far as it imposed a fine, the entry of judgment did not affect it. It follows that the petitioner is not entitled to a discharge until he has paid the fine.””
quoted by 1 later decision, including Wenger v. Wenger
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1889-01-04
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2000
1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →