Case Name: Thomas F. LUNDREGAN, Appellant, v. Mrs. G. Jeannette LUNDREGAN, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1958-01-17
Citations: 252 F.2d 823
Docket Number: No. 14148
Parties: Thomas F. LUNDREGAN, Appellant, v. Mrs. G. Jeannette LUNDREGAN, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 252
Pages: 823–828

Head Matter:
Thomas F. LUNDREGAN, Appellant, v. Mrs. G. Jeannette LUNDREGAN, Appellee.
No. 14148.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 17, 1957.
Decided Jan. 17, 1958.
Mr. John J. O’Brien, Washington, D. C. , for appellant.
Mr. Walter M. King, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Fahy and Bas-tían, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
FAHY, Circuit Judge.
The appeal is from an order of the District Court adjudging the appellant to be in contempt of that court for failure to obey its order for the payment of permanent maintenance and support for the: minor children of himself and his wife,, the appellee, and committing him to the-Washington Asylum and Jail for a period: of thirty days or until such earlier time-as he should purge himself of such contempt by making payment of the sum of' $225, or until further order of the court..
Under our Code one may not be-imprisoned to compel obedience to a court order directing the payment of money "except in those cases especially provided for." 31 Stat. 1208 (1901), § 11-326,. D.C.Code (1951). The only case especially provided for that has possible application here is where a husband fails or refuses to maintain his wife and minor children, although able to do so, after the court has decreed that he shall do so.. 31 Stat. 1346 (1901), as amended, § 16— 415, D.C.Code (1951), read with 31 Stat. 1346 (1901), as amended, § 16-410, D.C. Code (1951). See Queen v. Queen, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 157, 188 F.2d 624.
It has been the rule in this jurisdiction that when the validity of a commitment for contempt for nonpayment of a money judgment is questioned, the court will look behind the commitment order to the money judgment itself, and if that judgment is invalid on its face as a basis for commitment then the commitment will not be sustained. Bates v. Bates, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 141 F.2d 723; Rapeer v. Colpoys, 66 App.D.C. 216, 85 F.2d 715. The rule that a decree of court, assuming a jurisdictional basis, must be obeyed until set aside by judicial process, is not deemed applicable because of the Congressional policy against imprisonment for debt except where Congress has explicitly provided therefor.
In the present case neither the underlying order of the District Court for the payment of money for maintenance of the minor children nor the commitment order itself rests upon the necessary finding that the husband has failed or refused to maintain his wife and minor children although able to do so. We may not supply a finding required for the validity of the commitment. We cannot say even that the court was aware of the necessity of ascertaining the facts requisite to the making of such a finding.
We do not question the validity of the money judgment except as a basis for imprisonment.
Reversed.
. See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 293-295, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884.
. See Leonardo v. Leonardo, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 291, 239 F.2d 454; and see, also, Vendemia v. Cristaldi, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 230, 221 F.2d 103; Sanders Bros. Radio Station v. FCC, 70 App.D.C. 297, 300, 106 F.2d 321, 324.