Summary

Portrait of Roger B. Taney Roger B. Taney,  Spalding v. New York ex rel. Backus…

“ The contempt, of which the plaintiff in error was found guilty, was the wilful disobedience of the process of injunction. He did not refrain from doing what he was enjoined not to do. The power to punish for a wilful disobedience of process of this kind is essential to the administration of justice; without it, the writ of injunction in many cases would be entirely nugatory. When the process, which goes by the name of contempt, is merely to collect money which the party may not be able to pay, it is then properly deemed a mere civil remedy. ”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Roger B. Taney Roger B. Taney,  Spalding v. New York ex rel. Backus…

“ If any actual loss or injury shall have been produced to any party by the misconduct alleged, a fine shall be imposed sufficient to indemnify such party, and to satisfy his costs and expenses, which shall be paid over to him on the order of the court. And in such case the payment and acceptance of such fine shall be an absolute bar to any action by such aggrieved party to recover damages for such injury or loss. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature