Case Name: HOMMEL et al. v. BUTTLING
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-12-19
Citations: 61 N.Y.S. 811
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOMMEL et al. v. BUTTLING.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 61
Pages: 811–813

Head Matter:
HOMMEL et al. v. BUTTLING.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
December 19, 1899.)
Contempt—Misconduct—Omissions—Fines.
Code Civ. Proc. § 2285, relating to contempt, and providing that, where injury has been produced to a party to an action, for which there is no remedy by action, by an omission by another to perform an act, the latter “shall be imprisoned only until he has performed” the act, and paid the fine imposed, does not preclude an imposition of a fine on a party guilty of such an omission, without requiring him to perform the act, such procedure being allowed by section 2284, authorizing the imposition of an indemnifying fine on any one guilty of misconduct to a party to an action, where there is no remedy by action.
Goodrich, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, Kings county.
Action by Ellen 0. Hommel and another against William J. Butt-ling, as sheriff of Kings county. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before GOODRICH, P. J., and CULLEN, BARTLETT, HATCH, and WOODWARD, JJ.
Hugo Hirsh, for appellant.
Arthur P. Hilton, for 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 fine. Section 2285, Code Civ. Proc., has no application to such a case. It provides that, where the misconduct is an omission 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, con fine 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 v. Grant, 50 Hun, 243, 3 N. Y. Supp. 142, 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 concur, except GOODRICH, P. J., who dissents.