Hyperlawhypertext legal database Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Heldt 108 N.Y.S. 565

← Cases

Mutual Milk & Cream Co. v. Heldt

108 N.Y.S. 565 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1908-01-24 English

Delivered by HOUGHTON, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 565
MUTUAL MILK & CREAM CO. v. HELDT.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
January 24, 1908.)

Headnote

Injunction—Violation—Contempt.
Where defendant was enjoined from serving milk or cream to any customer of plaintiff betwéen certain dates, and he delivered milk on one occasion to three of such customers, though the damages resulting therefrom were comparatively trivial, he was guilty of contempt; the excuse offered by him being insufficient.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 27, Injunction, § 456.]
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by the Mutual Milk & Cream Company against Hermann Heldt. From an order denying a motion to punish defendant for contempt in violating an injunctional order, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and order directed.
See 105 N. Y. Supp. 661 .
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
Felix H. Levy, for appellant.
Joseph H. Hayes, for respondent.

This action was instituted to restrain defendant from violating a contract alleged -to have been made by him with plaintiff. A motion was made for an injunction during the pendency of the action which was denied. On appeal to this court that order

p. 566
was reversed and an injunction pendente lite was granted, restraining defendant from serving milk or cream to any person who was a- customer of plaintiff between November 14, 1905, and April 15, 1907, and who was still a customer of plaintiff on the last mentioned day. After service of a certified copy of this injunction order upon the defendant he delivered milk on one occasion to threé of such customers. A motion was made to punish him for contempt for such disobedience, which was denied, and from such order the plaintiff appeals.

While the damages resulting from the violation are comparatively trivial, there was a clear violation of the injunction order, which cannot be ignored. The excuse offered by defendant is insufficient. As long as the injunction stands, the defendant must obey it, whatever the seeming necessity for violating it may be.

The order refusing to punish the defendant must be reversed, with $10 costs, and disbursements, and an order adjudging him in contempt granted and fining him $10 as a punishment therefor. All concur. '