Opinion
No. 92-974
Submitted January 5, 1993 —
Decided April 14, 1993.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-840733.
The instant appeal arose as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County in State ex rel. Henneke v. Davis (Sept. 4, 1985), No. C-840733, unreported, 1985 WL 11465, reconsideration denied Sept. 27, 1985, wherein the court issued a writ of mandamus compelling appellee, Clerk of the Hamilton County Municipal Court, to accept surety bonds in all cases where a "monetary" bond is set.
In October 1991, appellee refused to accept a surety bond written by appellant bondsman, Martin Henneke, when a municipal judge had specifically conditioned the defendant's release in a felony case upon posting a "cash only" bond. (For a history of the events leading to appellee's adoption of a policy honoring "cash only" limitations placed on bonds, see the related case of State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 115, 609 N.E.2d 541, decided this date.) Appellant subsequently filed a motion in the court of appeals requesting that appellee be found in contempt of the court's order issued in 1985. The motion was denied after the appellate court in State ex rel. Jones v. Hendon (Apr. 29, 1992), Hamilton App. No. C-910729, unreported, 1992 WL 86512, held that a judge has the discretion to impose a "cash only" bond in felony cases.
This cause is before this court upon an appeal as a matter of right.
H. Fred Hoefle, for appellant.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Roger E. Friedmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
Appellant's motion, by which he seeks to preserve and enforce his claimed rights under the appellate court's order issued in 1985, is for civil contempt. See State v. Local Union No. 5760 (1961), 172 Ohio St. 75, 82-83, 15 O.O.2d 133, 138, 173 N.E.2d 331, 338; Wellman Eng. Co. v. Calderon Automation, Inc. (1965), 2 Ohio App.2d 385, 31 O.O.2d 591, 209 N.E.2d 172. The purpose of a civil contempt proceeding is remedial in nature, to obtain compliance with a lawful court order for the benefit of the complainant. State v. Local Union No. 5760, supra; Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 14, 520 N.E.2d 1362.
In the companion case of Jones, supra, we have already provided the relief appellant seeks: the effective nullification of the clerk's policy honoring "cash only" bonds. Because our consideration of this appeal can not result in further benefit to appellant, we dismiss this appeal as being moot.
Appeal dismissed.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.