Court Opinion

ID: 9633858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:04:03.927258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:51.502071
License: Public Domain

KIKER, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). To the extent and with the result that the defendant be enjoined as ordered, I concur in the majority opinion. As to the requirement that a bond in the sum of $5,000 be required of defendant as a guarantee that she will live in obedience to an order of the court of general-jurisdiction, I dissent. The arm of a court of equity is not, and there should be no intimation that it is, so short that it cannot protect its order without bringing in additional aid and assistance by way of bond. The order of the court as modified by the majority is that the defendant should not use the designated property for purposes of lewdness, assignation or prostitution and further that she “ * * * post with the Clerk of this Court a $5,000.00 bond, conditioned upon her abiding by the above order in all respects.” In case the defendant should violate the order of the court by opening the designated premises as a bawdy house, the court should have, and does have, the power to bring her in and punish her for contempt. Having this power, why should a bond be required? I know nothing of the financial standing of defendant but wonder just what is intended should result if she is unable to make a $5,000 bond. If defendant does deposit the bond, no court has the power merely to require a forfeiture of the principal amount of the bond in case of failure to comply with the injunction order. If defendant does deposit the, bond and if suit is necessary who must sue — the State or the plaintiff? If defendant cannot deposit the bond is she not then in contempt ? Having no money, must she go to jail? Are we about to return to the maintenance of cells for poor debtors? I have tried to find in the books authority justifying the requirement that defendant post this bond, but have failed.