People ex rel. Hinckley v. Pirfenbrink

Citations

• 96 Ill. 68
• 1879 Ill. LEXIS 46

Syllabus

<p>1. Contempt—sufficiency of judgment. A judgment or order of court, that a defendant stand committed to the county jail until the further order of the court, and awarding a mittimus for that purpose, for a contempt in refusing to obey a previous order of the court that he surrender boolcs, etc., in his hands as receiver to his successor, is illegal and void, and will not justify the imprisonment of the defendant.</p> <p>2. Same—power to review judgment of committal. If a committal for a contempt of court is for a definite period, or until the defendant shall perform a specified act, the judgment will be capable of being reviewed on error, but when the order of commitment is until the further order of the court, the appellate court can not know the duration of the imprisonment and determine whether the confinement is reasonable, or is oppressive and wrong.</p> <p>3. Habeas corpus—no discharge, for mere error. If an order of commitment for a contempt of court is simply erroneous, this court has no power to discharge the prisoner on habeas corpus. In such case error or appeal is the only remedy, but it is otherwise when the judgment and process are void.</p> <p>4. Thus, where an order and mittimus for the imprisonment of a party were not for any definite period, or until he. should perform some act required of him, it was held, that the order and process were too indefinite, and were void, and the prisoner was discharged.</p> <p>5. Judgment—must be specific and certain. All judgments must be specific and certain. They must determine the rights recovered or the penalties imposed, and be such as the defendant may readily understand and be capable of performing.</p>