Case Name: Ellen C. Hommel and James H. Harnden, Respondents, v. William J. Buttling, as Sheriff of the County of Kings, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899
Citations: 46 A.D. 206
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ellen C. Hommel and James H. Harnden, Respondents, v. William J. Buttling, as Sheriff of the County of Kings, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 206–209

Head Matter:
Ellen C. Hommel and James H. Harnden, Respondents, v. William J. Buttling, as Sheriff of the County of Kings, Appellant.
Commitment few-'contempt in refusing to perform an act -^the punishment maybe confined to the payment of a fine — in such case a disahw'ge at the end of six months is proper:
A commitment for contempt in refusing to perform an act .still in the power of the offender may, under section 2284 of the Code of Civil Procedure, limit the punishment to the payment of a fine.
Where a commitment does not, in addition to the fine imposed, direct the impris:. onment of the offender to continue until he performs the act required of him, section 2285 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the case, and the sheriff, after the expiration of six months, may lawfully ■ discharge him from imprisonment.,
Goodrich, P. ‘J., dissented.
Appeal by the defendant, William J. Buttling, as sheriff of the county of Kings, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 14th day of July, 1899, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial before the court without a jury at the Kings County Trial Term.
The facts in this case are statéd in the opinion of Goodrich, P. J.
Hugo Hirsh, for the appellant.
Arthur P. Hilton, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Cullen, J.:
We differ from the view of the learned' presiding justice that the commitment is illegal on its face. It did not direct the imprisonment of the debtor for any period whatever after the. payment of his .line. Section 2285, Code of Civil Procedure, has no application to such a case. It provides that where the misconduct is an ¿mission to perform an act still in the power of the offender to perform, he shall be imprisoned only until he has performed it and paid the fine, and that in other cases he may be imprisoned not exceeding six months. The effect of this section is to limit the power of the court to inflict imprisonment as punishment for contempt, in one case to only such time as the defendant may perform an act still within his power, in the other to a term not exceeding six months. But the section does not require that the court must, of necessity, inflict imprisonment in either class of cases. It may, under section 2284, confine the punishment to the payment of a fine simply. This is what has been done in the present case. The court might, in addition to the fine imposed, have directed the imprisonment of the offender to continue until he should submit to an examination, but it was not required to do so. People ex rel. Post v. Grant (50 Hun, 243) is not an authority to the contrary. In that case the relator was discharged, not because there was no direction that he be imprisoned until he performed any act or duty, but because, having been directed to be imprisoned until he complied with certain orders of the court, the commitment failed to specify the particular acts which he was to do, as required by section 2285.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
All concurred, except Goodrich, P. J., who read for reversal.