Opinion
04-23-1888
ARNETT v. TRIMMER.
John Lilly, for complainant. M. L. Trimmer, pro se. W. F. Hayhurst, for Arnett & Martindell.
On motion for contempt.
John Lilly, for complainant. M. L. Trimmer, pro se. W. F. Hayhurst, for Arnett & Martindell.
BIRD, V. C. In this case, Mr. Trimmer, who is one of the solicitors of this court, was made assignee for the benefit of the creditors of an insolvent debtor. As such assignee, he caused an appraisement to be made. Among the articles so appraised were a sleigh, wagon, and set of harness; and these were valued at $45. While he held these articles, an injunction was procured by the complainant, who held a chattel mortgage on these and other goods, forbidding the defendant, as assignee, from selling them. Afterwards the complainant established her mortgage in this court, and showed that the three articles named were covered by it. But after the injunction had been served, and before the final decree, Mr. Trimmer sold the said three articles. On the application of the complainant an order was made requiring Mr. Trimmer to show cause why he should not be attached for contempt in disobeying the plain mandate of the court. In response, he says he, in making the sale, acted in the best of faith; that the property was of a perishable nature, and was suffering greatly from exposure. He also says that he obtained the consent of certain of the parties interested, though the complainant, through her solicitor, refused to give any consent. He offers these considerations, and the price he received for the goods, by way of satisfaction for his disregard of the plain order of the court. The money received by him was considerably less than they were appraised at. I am not satisfied to let the case rest upon this statement and offer. I have no doubt but that the statement is true. Nor have I the slightest doubt but that what Mr. Trimmer did was honestly done by him. But, certainly, no greater folly in the world could be conceived of than for the court to accept such statements, however honestly done, as sufficient consideration for violating its order. If this were to be done, it would be simply substituting the will or judgment of the party for the order of the court, and every order might thus be rendered nugatory, and the court would be unable to protect itself in the slightest degree. And I think that the fact that Mr. Trimmer is one of the solicitors of this court makes it doubly necessary that the court should be careful in protecting its integrity in this case against such invasion. But acting, nevertheless, upon the alleged good faithof Mr. Trimmer, and also upon the conviction that the court owes a duty to the complainant as well, I conclude that an attachment shall issue, unless Mr. Trimmer, within 10 days from this date, pay to the solicitors of the complainant the appraised value of said goods, and the costs of this proceeding.
The order to show cause, presented by Mr. Trimmer, is dismissed, but without costs.