Hayes v. Fischer
Cases that cite this one
43 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- In re Cary (District Court, S.D. New York 1882)
- Nilva v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1957)
- In re Heinze (9th Cir. 1904)
- Tinsley v. Anderson (Supreme Court of the United States 1898)
- Ex parte Whitmore (Utah 1894)
- Hendryx v. Fitzpatrick (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts 1884)
- Securities and Exchange Commission v. Raymond J. McNamee (7th Cir. 2007)
- Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig (7th Cir. 1997)
- Cleveland Hair Clinic, Inc. v. Puig (7th Cir. 1997)
- David B. Rosenfeldt and Diane Rosenfeldt v. Comprehensive Accounting Service Corporation (7th Cir. 1975)
- United States ex rel. Sutton v. Mulcahy (2d Cir. 1948)
- Fox v. Capital Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1936)
- Cheney v. Richards (Me. 1931)
- Commissioner of Banks v. Tremont Trust Co. (Mass. 1929)
- Farmers & Mechanics Nat. Bank of Fort Worth v. Wilkinson (Supreme Court of the United States 1925)
- In re González (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1915)
- In re González (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1915)
- Oronoz v. Montalvo (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1914)
- Oronoz v. Montalvo (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1914)
- Re Gompers (D.C. Cir. 1913)
- Swift Fertilizer Works v. Okolona Cotton Oil Co. (5th Cir. 1911)
- Costilla Land & Investment Co. v. Allen (N.M. 1910)
- Kelley v. McCombs (Okla. 1909)
- Hammond Lumber Co. v. Sailors' Union of Pacific (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California 1909)
- Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1904)
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
delivered the opinion of the court.
Fischer, the defendant in error, brought a suit in equity in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to restrain Hayes, the plaintiff in error, from using a certain patented device. In this suit an interlocutory injunction was granted. Complaint having been made .against Hayes for a violation of this injunction, proceedings were instituted against him for contempt, which resulted in an' order by the court that he pay the clerk $l,389i99 as a fine, and that he stand committed until the order was obeyéd. To reverse this order, Hayes sued out this writ of error, which Fischer now moves to dismiss, on the ground that such proceedings in the Circuit Court cannot be re-examined here.
If the order complained of is to be treated as part of what was done in the original suit, it cannot be brought here for review by writ. óf error. Errors in equity suits can only be corrected in this court on appeal, and that after a final.decree. This order, if part of the proceedings’ in the suit, was interlocutory only.
If the proceeding below, being for contempt, was independent of and separate from the original suit, it cannot be re-examined here either by writ of error or appeal. This was decided more than fifty years ago in Ex parte Kearney (7 Wheat. 38), and the rule, then established was followed as late as New Orleans v. Steamship Company, 20 Wall. 387.
It follows that we have no jurisdiction.
Motion granted.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.