1. The judgments and orders of Courts or Judges on the subject of contempt are final and conclusive; and under the writ of habeas corpus, one Court will not interfere with the orders or judgments of another Court in such cases. (1 Kern. 324; 4 Wisc. 522; Ex parte Cohen and Jones , 5 Cal. 494; Hurd on Habeas Corpus, 410-413, et seq., and cases cited; People v. Nevins, 1 Hill, 154; Case of Yates, 4 Johns. 366, 370, 372; 1 Cal. 152; 3 Hill, 663, note 38, 661, et seq.; 25 Miss. 883; Ex parte Adams, 14 U. S.D. 114; Jordan v. State, 14 Tex. 436; Opinion of Murray, C. J., 7 Cal. 176; Baltimore and O. R. R. v. Wheeling, 13 Gratt., Va., 40; 17 U. S.D. 132.)
2. This Court grants the writ of habeas corpus as an original writ, and not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction. (Cons. Cal. art. 6, sec. 4.)
3. The Court may order counsel fees to be paid to a wife in adivorce case in which she is defendant. (Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, 571, et seq.; Mix v. Mix, 1 Johns. Ch. 108; 2 Barb. Ch. Pr. 265; Ryan v. Ryan , 9 Mo. 539; McGee v. McGee , 10 Ga. 477; Melez v. Melez, 1 Parsons, Penn., 78.)
4. The sum ordered to be paid is not a debt. (1 Burrill's Law Dic. 343; 2 Black. Com. 125; Lyon v. Lyon , 21 Conn. 185, 13 U. S.D. 131.)
5. The remedy of the party for nonpayment of money under order of a Court of Chancery, has always been by imprisonment for contempt or by sequestration. (2 Barb. Ch. Pr. 272; 2 Paige, 578; Id. 280, 698.)
JUDGES: Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Cope, J. concurring.
OPINION
BALDWIN, Judge
Subsequently, on the twentieth of April, 1861, petitioner applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to the Third District Court to send up the record and proceedings in the cause, and for an order staying all proceedings upon the judgment for contempt. The petition set forth the facts as hereinbefore related, and averred, further, that, as to the order of the Court below requiring petitioner to pay the four hundred dollars counsel fees, he has lost his right to appeal; and that as to the judgment for contempt, no appeal lies; that the Court below has adjourned for the term, and therefore petitioner cannot move to vacate said order and judgment, and hence he is without a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, unless this Court will review the proceedings of said Third District Court.
Upon this petition the Supreme Court ordered that defendant, Elizabeth Perkins, show cause why the writ should not issue. By stipulation this application was heard upon the record in the preceding application for a writ of habeas corpus, defendant also filing an affidavit not necessary to be noticed. Cope, J. delivered the opinion of the Court--Baldwin, J. concurring.
This is an application for a certiorari. The opinion delivered at the present term, refusing to discharge the applicant upon a writ of habeas corpus, is decisive of the points involved in this application.
Writ denied, and petition dismissed.