Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-02-05
ity the authority was implied by the con.

n terred to, took effect.
is Section /, chapter IL, laws Of 1859,
g, as follows That suits in equity may /
I'd begun, injunction granted, or receiver
A. appointed in aid Of any suit at laV
f. whether the same has been prosecuted
,e judgment or not, provided, that sue
~ suit at law has been begun at the tim
le any such equitable relief is sought"
,e 1t is objected that the mandamus Pre-
C. ceedings was not suit at law but while
J. in a strictly legal sense it is not an aCtio
Is at Law, We are Of the opinion that tn
n term suit at law is used in its broades
sense, and that it w8s intended to author
IS ize the aid OF equity whenever it wa
e necessary in order to give more com
!. plete and eifectual remedy in any pendin,
n gal proceeding.
d The word suit is a very comprehensive
g term. As used in the judiciary act, 1883
a section 20, it was construed TO mean
, ANY proceeding in court OF Justice in
, which the plaintiff pursues to such court
4 the remedy which the law affords him.
An application for a prohibition is a
: suit" 2 Peters, 449.
"1n its most extended sense, the word
, suit includes not only civil action hut
: dlSO criminal aCtl0n,
Story on Const, 27l9.
Gritty Pl. 1893.
"Suit applies to proceedings in chan.
Gerry as we'll as law" SIN Oh.
And is, therefore. more general than
action, which is almost exclusively ap-
piled to actions at law.
20 Paige, Oh. 5lG.
The term as used in the statute is to
be construed in its comprehensive sense
and comprehends proceedings ancillary
to the remedy by mandamus as author
lied by section 10, chapter 1873, laws Of
1889.
The injunction proceeding is in aid of
the mandamus as shown by the record,
and indeed each refers to the other, and
the nature of the remedy sought shows
| the ancillary character OF the proceed
tngs. Can il be contended that court
possessing enlarged jurisdiction both at
law and in equity, Will decline to stay an
illegal act and preserve the status quo
until equal and exact justice can be done
We think not, therefore hold that upon
the case presented the court had com
plete jurisdiction on the subject matter
and of the person, and properly granted
That the command OF the writ was dis
obeyed by the petitioners is not denied
by them, and the record alo shows the |
violation of the injunction by setting
out in full the certificates which the |
court had restrained them from issuing.
If the court had jurisdiction of the person
and subject matter, which We have al
ready answered in the affirmative, it fol-
lows that the action OF the petitioners in
disobeying the order of the court WAS con-
tempt, for which they were liable to
punishment. They were properly brought
before the court by attachment and pun
ished by fine and committed to the coun-
ty Jail until the fine aud costs were paid.
1t is objected by counsel for petitioners
that the court exceeded its authority in
the matter OF punishment, inaslnuch as
four distinct fines were assessed of $50
each, for four distinct ofienses in one
proceeding. The record shows that these
fines were assessed separately, and there
being no doubt OF the inherent power OF
the court TO punish, as well as by virtue
of the statute, there can be no doubt of the
legality Of the first fine Of $50, but the
fact that more fines were assessed would
not make the entire punishment void
The petitioners are liable to be held for
the valid fine. 1t is mere irregularity,
that does not warrant discharge on
habeas corpus. Errors or Irregularities
are durable in the court from which the
process issued or by appeal not on
habeas corpus.
Church on habeas corpus, section 344,
1863 and cases cited. {
Tho onprap1n no,,t rs ,ro n;ot.;nt e | .
Columbia, in q case where three senten.
ces had been imposed, says: "The rea.
tor appears to be imprisoned for three '
several terms of 1870 days each, without c
any specification as TO the time of Begin
ming or ending of the last two terms of {
The sentences pronounced
by the court do not provide that the pc.
RODS of imprisonment under these con-
vlctions are to commence at any future r
period or after the expiration OF the r
period mentioned in the former
Judgment. This omission is fatal to any
which exceeds that of
single sentence"
There is nothing before this court to ;
show that either of the petitioners moved y
,he court to remit tie fines, or that pay
nent OF either OF the fines has been made;
hence the punishment is not matter for
our consideration. The petitioners were
committed to Jail until the fine was paid, 6
and properly SO. The commitment is not !
separate punishment, it is simply an in q
,ident to it. In the case of Fischer VS..
Hayes, 6 Fed. Rep. SO, the court said
1T is in this view that it has always been r
held that where the statute authorizes or e
orescribes the infiiction OF fine as pun q
shment, either for a contempt of court or :,
or defined oflense, it is lawful for the v
court intlicting the fine to direct that the p
parties stand committed until the fine be d
paid, although there be no specific atiirma- 4
i've grant OF power in the statu, e to make :,
such direction"
1t is not necessary in this case, nor
Toes the court intend to construe Sec. 865,
Comp. Laws, with a view of determining t
The power of the legislature to limit the I
nor whether the fine provided for would
be- the extent of punishment. The court
observed the limit of the statute in asses.
sing the fine for each contempt, and while Ii
fines in the same action for four :,
distinct contempts may be irregular ex- >,
cept as to the first, as the fines were sep. u
arate it can not avail the petitioners prior 2
to the payment Of the valid fine and costs. 81
The objection OF want of jurisdiction in G
is not well taken. By section ii
1929, Comp. Laws, the courts of this ter "
.itory are always open, and their jurisdic- IL
ion Is com prehensiye enough to include II
proceedings in contempt. L
The prayer Of the writ of habeas corpus q
will be denied, and the petitioners will be y
.emanded. JOHN r. McFIE, q"
We CONCUR Associate Justice.
A. A. FREEMAN,
W. H. LEE,
Associate Justices. n
n