Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 Wis. 439

Wright v. Wright

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided September 24, 1889

Wisconsin Supreme Court · decided 1889-09-24

<p>(1) Habeas corpus: Review on writ of error. (Z, 8) Divorce: Bond, with surety, for payment of alimony: Modification of judgment: Contempt.</p> <p>1. On writ of error to review an order or judgment made in a habeas corpus proceeding, remanding a prisoner to custody, this court is limited to the question of jurisdiction; and the rule is the same where the judgment brought up for review was rendered by the circuit court on certiorari to a court commissioner who had issued the writ of habeas corpus and discharged the prisoner thereon.</p> <p>2. Under sec. 2367, R. S., the circuit court may require the husband to give a bond with surety for the payment of alimony or other allowance adjudged to the wife in a divorce action. And though the original judgment did not provide for such security it may be subsequently required.</p> <p>8. A refusal to give such bond with surety, when required, may be punished as a contempt.</p> <p>ORTON, J., dissents.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1889-09-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1956

9 state decisions

3018891890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Orton, J.

¶1I most respectfully dissent from the decision in this case. The decision is evasive of the real question. The order requiring the defendant to give security was not appealed from, and the time for appealing therefrom ha.d expired. It is therefore doubtful, at least, whether that order can be reviewed on this writ of error. The court then adjudged that the defendant be imprisoned for contempt for not complying with that order. The court commissioner, on habeas corpus, discharged the defendant on his showing by affidavits that it was not in his power to perform that order. On certiorari, the circuit court adjudged that the order of the court commissioner be reversed, and that the defendant be recommitted to prison for not performing that same order. This last judgment is brought *446here by tbe writ of error, ancl that is the only judgment to which the writ is addressed. The decision is that, as the court had jurisdiction to make that original order, this last judgment be affirmed. The jurisdiction or errors of the last judgment were not considered. The office of a writ of error is to bring before the court the record, that the errors thereof be reviewed. It is not confined to the question of .jurisdiction alone. This last judgment, however, is not only void for want of jurisdiction, but is erroneous. The statute (sec. 8491, R. 8.) requires the court, before ordering the defendant imprisoned, to adjudge that the order was yet in the power of the defendant to perform.” This important fact was not determined by the court, but, on the other hand, the defendant made it appear, at least prima, fade, that it was not within his power to perform it. This is a condition precedent to such a judgment, and the judgment is void without it. This important question is not disposed of by the decision. If the . defendant cannot obtain relief on this writ of error, I cannot see how he can ever be relieved from this unlawful imprisonment. Why cannot this court review this judgment on a writ of error, dike any other judgment of the circuit court? That judgment is that the defendant be imprisoned, not only until he performs that order, but until he pays the costs of these proceedings. Is that lawful?

¶2By the Court.— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

/74/wis/439 · .json · Public domain