KFLCC Kingdom Law 2nd Ed.

257

CONTEMPT

CONSUMMATION

tion; a construction drawn from the time when, and the circumstances under which, the subject-matter to be construed, as a statute or custom, originated. Contemporanea ezpositio est optima ei fortissima in lege. Contemporaneous ex position is the best and strongest in the law. 2 Inst 11. A statute is best explained by following the construction put upon it by judges who lived at the time it was made, or soon after. 10 Coke, 70; Broom, Max. 682. Contumacy; a willful dis regard of the authority of a court of justice or legislative body or disobedience to its law ful orders. Contempt of court is committed by a per son who does any act in willful contraven tion of its authority or dignity, or tending to impede or frustrate the administration of jus tice, or by one who, being under the court's authority as a party to a proceeding therein, willfully disobeys its lawful orders or fails to comply with an undertaking which he has given. Welch v. Barber, 52 Conn. 147, 52 Am. Rep. 567; Lyon v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 198; Kissel v. Lewis, 27 Ind. App. 302, 61 N. E. 209; Yates v. Lansing, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 395, 6 Am. Dec. 290; Stuart v. People, 4 111. 395; Gandy v. State, 13 Neb. 445, 14 N. W. 143. Classification. Contempts are of two kinds, direct and constructive. Direct contempts are those committed in the immediate view and presence of the court (such as insulting language or acts of violence) or so near the presence of the court as to obstruct or interrupt the due and orderly course of proceedings. These are punishable summarily. They are also called "criminal" contempts, but that term is better used in contrast with "civil" contempts. See infra. Ex parte Wright, 65 Ind. 508; State v. McClaugherty, 33 W. Va. 250, 10 S. E. 407; State v. Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205, 76 S. W. 79, 99 Am. St Rep. 624; Indianapolis Water Co. v. American Strawboard Co. (C. C.) 75 Fed. 975; In re Dill, 32 Kan. 668, 5 Pac. 39, 49 Am. Rep. 505; State v. Hansford, 43 W. Va. 773, 28 S. E. 791; Androscoggin & K. R. Co. v. Androscoggin R. Co., 49 Me. 392. Construc tive (or indirect) contempts are those which arise from matters not occurring in or near the presence of the court, but which tend to ob struct or defeat the administration of justice, and the term is chiefly used with reference to the failure or refusal of a party to obey a law ful order, injunction, or decree of the court lay ing upon him a duty of action or forbearance. Androscoggin & K. R» Co. v. Androscoggin R. Co, 49 Me. 392; Cooper v. People, 13 Colo. 337, 22 Pac. 790, 6 L. R. A. 430; Stuart v. People, 4 111. 395; McMakin v. McMakin, 68 Mo. App. 57. Constructive contempts were for merly called "consequential," and this term is still in occasional use. Contempts are also classed as civil or crim inal. The former are those quasi contempts which consist in the failure to do something which the party is ordered by the court to do for the benefit or advantage of another party to the proceeding before the court, while criminal contempts are acts done in disrespect of the court or its process or which obstruct the ad ministration of justice or tend to bring the court into disrespect. A civil contempt is not an offense against the dignity of the court, but against the party in whose behalf the mandate of the court was issued, and a fine is imposed CONTEMPT.

CONSUMMATION. The completion of a thing ; the completion of a marriage between two affianced persons by cohabitation. Shar on v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633, 22 Pac. 26. CONTAGIOUS DISEASE. One capable of being transmitted by mediate or immediate contact See Grayson v. Lynch, 163 U. S. 468, 16 Sup. Ct 1064, 41 L. Ed. 230; Stryker T. Crane, 33 Neb. 690, 50 N. W. 1132; Pierce T. Dillingham, 203 111. 148, 67 N. E. 846, 62 Jx R. A. 888. See INFECTION. In English law. The com mission received for carrying over or putting off the time of execution of a contract to deliver stocks or pay for them at a certain time. Wharton. CONTEK. L. Fr. A contest, dispute, dis turbance, opposition. Britt. c. 42; Kelham. Conteckours; brawlers; disturbers of the peace. Britt c. 29. CONTEMNER. One who has committed contempt of court Wyatt v. People, 17 Colo. 252, 28 Pac. 961. CONTEMPLATION. The act of the mind in considering with attention. Continued attention of the mind to a particular sub ject. Consideration of an act or series of acts with the Intention of doing or adopting them. The consideration of an event or state of facts with the expectation that it will transpire. —Contemplation of bankruptcy. Contem plation of the breaking up of one's business or an inability to continue it; knowledge of, and action with reference to, a condition of bank ruptcy or ascertained insolvency, coupled with an intention to commit what the law declares to be an "act of bankruptcy," or to make pro vision against the consequences of insolvency, or to defeat the general distribution of assets which would take places under a proceeding in bankruptcy. Jones v. Howland, 8 Mete. (Mass.) 384, 41 Am. Dec. 525; Paulding v. Steel Co., 94 N. Y. 339; In re Duff (D. C.) 4 Fed. 519; Morgan v. Brundrett, 5 Barn. & Aid. 289; Win sor v. Kendall, 30 Fed. Cas. 322; Buckingham v. McLean, 13 How. 167, 14 L. Ed. 90; In re Carmichael (D. C.) 96 Fed. 594.— Contempla tion of death. The apprehension or expecta tion of approaching dissolution; not that gen eral expectation which every mortal entertains, but the apprehension which arises from some presently existing sickness or physical condition or from some impending danger. As applied to transfers of property, the phrase "in contempla tion of death" is practically equivalent to "causa mortis." In re Cornell's Estate, 66 App. Div. 162, 73 N. Y. Supp. 32; In re Edgerton's Es tate, 35 App. Div. 125, 54 N. Y. Supp. 700; In re Baker's Estate, 83 App. Div. 530, 82 N. Y. Supp. 390.— Contemplation of insolven cy. Knowledge of, and action with reference to, an existing or contemplated state of insol vency, with a design to make provision against its results or to defeat the operation of the in solvency laws. Robinson v. Bank, 21 N. Y. 411; Paulding v. Steel Co., 94 N. Y. 338; Heroy v. Kerr, 21 How. Prac. 420; Anstedt v. Eentley, 61 Wis. 629, 21 N. W. 807. La t Contemporaneous exposition, or construe* BL.LAW DICT.(2D ED.)—17 CONTANGO. CONTEMPORANEA EXPOSITIO.