Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/87

 FISCHER V. HAIES. 75 �says that as it is the established course in matters of con- tempt to receive the submission of the party whenever he is ready to offer it, and, on reasonable satisfaction made, to dis- charge him, an order to commit him during the pleaeure of the court is favorable to him, for if a definite time is fixed in the sentence the court cannot alter it even on his submis- sion. This was said in a case -where the sole punishment infiicted for a contempt of court was imprisonment until the further order of the court. The principle applies a fortiori to the present case, where submission may be made by pay- ing the fine, and where the commitment must terminate when the fine is paid. �In Green v. Elgie, above cited, also reported in 5 Ad. & Eli. (N. S.) 99, the court of review in bankruptcy orderedone Green, a party before it, to pay certain costs within four days, or, in default, to stand committed to prison. He was committed. Afterwards he sued in the queen's bench, for false imprisonment, the person on whose application he was committed and his attorney. There was a verdict against the latter. One ground urged for sustaining the verdict was that the warrant of commitment was void because it did not direct how long the party should remain in prison. The court held that in that respect there was no objection to the warrant ; but it was held bad because the order on which it was founded did not adjudge a contempt, or direct any- thing to be done by the party to clear himself from it. �In Douhleday v. Sherman, 8 Blatchf. 45, a fine was imposed for contempt in the violation of an injunction, and the de- fendant was ordered to stand committed until the fine should be paid. �It must, therefore, be held that this court had power to order the defendant to be committed until the fine should be paid. �It is equally clear that the court did not exhaust its power by the order of February I7th. That order adjudged the con- tempt, and set on foot a proceeding for ascertaining what , amount of pecuniary fine should be imposed therefor, direct- ing on what principle and by what means it should be fixed. The subsequent order of March 13th fixed the amountj im- ��� �