As stated in the other contempt matter the next morning Mr. Glenn was appointed to represent Knox and trial was reset for November 10, 1970. For other contempt citations growing out of the spitting incident see, DePatten v. Honorable Ray Harrison, Judge, No. 19/54552; Green v. Honorable Ray Harrison, Judge, No. 20/54553; Rhem v. Municipal Court of City of Des Moines and Ray Harrison, Judge, No. 21/54555, all filed as of the date of this opinion, 185 N.W.2d 720, 722, 724. I. The conduct complained of here was a direct contempt in the immediate view and hearing of the court.
The provision in question, or legislation of a substantially similar character, has existed in this state for more than half a century (Hittell's General Laws, Stats. 1852-1861; Stats. 1865-1875); and though repeatedly before this court, the constitutionality of such legislation has never been questioned. (Patten v. Ray, 4 Cal. 287; Park v. Williams, 7 Cal. 247; Scarborough v. Dugan, 10 Cal. 305; Palmer v. Shaw, 16 Cal. 93; Dorn v. Thornburgh, 90 Cal. 66;Harrigan v. Home LifeIns. Co., 128 Cal. 543.) 25 Am. St. Rep. 100.
" 1. An action upon a contract, obligation, or liability, not founded upon an instrument of writing, or founded upon an instrument of writing executed out of the state." That the judgment herein is not such an instrument in writing (Patten v. Ray , 4 Cal. 287) is evident from the use here made of the word "executed," which must be construed to apply to the act of the party sought to be charged. But it is a contract in writing in the full sense of the term "contract or obligation" as employed by our statute (Stuart v. Lander , 16 Cal. 375; 76 Am. Dec. 538; Reed v. Eldredge , 27 Cal. 346; Wallace v. Eldredge , 27 Cal. 498; Bean v. Loryea , 81 Cal. 152); and, as such, is not embraced in the two years' limitation prescribed by the provisions of that subdivision of the section.