Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 2).pdf/493

obeying an injunctional order. There was a fine of $125 imposed. The court held that the order was not appealable, saying: “The defendant was convicted of willful disobedience of an order of the court, and was adjudged in contempt because of such disobedience, and fined therefor. Looking at its results, whatever it may have been in its inception, the proceeding is not a controversy between certain parties to the civil action out of which it arose and the appellant, in which the former seek indemnity for the wrongful act of the latter, but a public prosecution, by which the state seeks to vindicate the authority of one of its courts, and to punish the defendant for an alleged interference therewith. It is quite immaterial that the alleged contempt was committed in the progress of a civil action. It was essentially a criminal contempt, and the court sought to punish it as such by imposing a fine upon the defendant which, if paid, goes to the school fund. No party to the civil cause has any more interest in the conviction and punishment of the appellant than has any other citizen of the state. That an appeal does not lie from a judgment or order in a criminal case or proceeding has been frequently adjudicated by this court, and is now too well settled to be questioned or doubted.” After citing the cases the court continues: ‘In the above cases the distinction between those proceedings for contempt, which merely result in enforcing civil remedies, and those which result in the imposition of criminal punishment, as affecting the right of appeal, is stated and considered.” In Shannon v. State, 18 Wis. 604, the contempt order held appealable awarded to the party in whose favor the injunctional order, disobeyed by the appellant, had been made, damages sustained by the former by reason of such contempt. This was under the Wisconsin statute. See this statute, quoted at length In re Pierce, 44 Wis. 411, at page 422. In Ballston Bank v. Marine Bank, 18 Wis. 490, the order held appealable was made in proceedings to punish for contempt a third person, having property of the judgment debtor, who refused to answer proper questions in supplementary proceedings. Such a contempt proceeding is clearly a remedy to enforce the rights of the judgment creditor under his order in supplementary proceedings, and is therefore