Minnesota Supreme Court, 1889

In re Fanning

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided January 4, 1889

40 Minn. 4; 41 N.W. 1076; 1889 Minn. LEXIS 1 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

W. H. Donahue and James A. Kellogg, for petitioner., Thos. Canty, for respondent.

Can I rely on this case?

Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.

(as of 9/30/2026)

Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1967, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.

Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error

Cases that cite this one

17 later published cases cite this decision.

Peterson v. Peterson (Minn. 1967)
Richardson v. Richardson (Minn. 1944)
Wenger v. Wenger (Minn. 1937)
Zinsmeister v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 2000)
Maddox v. Maddox (Ala. 1964)
Zieman v. Zieman (Minn. 1963)
Lowry v. Lowry (Okla. 1941)
SALVAGE PROCESS CORPORATION v. Acme Tank Cleaning Process Corporation (2d Cir. 1936)
State ex rel. Eder v. Searles (Minn. 1918)
Red River Potato Growers Ass'n v. Bernardy (Minn. 1915)
Hutchison v. Canon (Okla. 1898)
State ex rel. Hurd v. Willis (Minn. 1895)
State v. Leftwich (Minn. 1889)
Duss v. Duss (Fla. 1926)
Cain v. Miller (Neb. 1922)
People ex rel. Smith v. District Court of Second Judicial District (Colo. 1895)
State v. Knight (S.D. 1893)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

By the Court.

In this case the order committing for contempt had a double aspect: First, it was in the nature of a remedy to the party to enforce payment of the alimony; second, it was also punitive, or merely in punishment of the offence of contempt. In the first aspect it was only for the private benefit of the party; in the second, only to assert and vindicate the authority of the court, and so far its purpose was public. So far as it was private or remedial, — that is, so far as it required payment of money to the other party, — its force and life fell with the entry of judgment of dismissal; but, so far as it imposed a fine, the entry of judgment did not affect it. It follows that the petitioner is not entitled to a discharge until he has paid the *5fine. On payment of that, the remainder of the order being no longer in force, of course he will be entitled to a discharge. Let the petitioner be remanded.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.