Case ID: ohio-law-abs_1/html/0553-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KUNKLE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 584
    GREENVILLE FERTILIZER CO. v. IRWIN
    Ohio Appeals, Second District, Darke County
    No. 172.
    June 28, 1923
    This opinion has not been published except in Abstract.
    CONTEMPT — A proceeding in contempt will fail unless based on an order, judgment or command.
    Attorneys — John Dineen and O. R. Krickenberger, for Greenville Fertilizer Co.; Mannix Crawford and Billingsley, for Irwin.
   KUNKLE, J.

Epitomized Opinion

This is a proceeding in contempt based upon a journal entry which washn substance:

This case is to be dismissed at the costs of defendant, without record other than this entry on the journal of the court, upon defendant’s entering into a bond,, to the approval of the court, in the sum of $3,000.00 to the State of Ohio for the faithful performance by the defendant of all the rules and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Agriculture of the State of Ohio governing and regulating the operation of reduction fertilizer manufacturing plants.

This bond was given'and the case was dismissed. In this proceeeding the lower court found defendant, the Greenville Fertilizer Co., guilty of contempt. Error was prosecuted to this court. Heldii

By 12137 GC. proceedings in contempt are to punish “disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment or command of a court or officer.” In the journal entry above quoted there is no order, judgment or command upon which a proceeding in contempt could be based. Judgment of Common Pleas reversed and proceedings in contempt dismissed.