tion. Dickey v. Reed, 78 Ill. 261; Walton v. Develing, 61 DL 201; Darst v. People, 63 Ill. 306.
S. G. Roberts, for respondent:
The judgment herein is not appealable. U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32; First Cong. Church v. Muscatine, 2 Clark (Iowa) 69; State v. Morrill, 16 Ark. 384; Middlebrook v. State, 43 Conn. 267; People v. Wilson, 64 Ill 195; Whittem v. State, 36 Ind. 212; ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat, 38; New Orleans v. Steamship Co., 20 Wall. 387; Hagen v. Alsten, 9 Ala. 627; Cassart v. State, 14 Ark. 583; Tyler vy. Hammersley, 44 Conn. 393; Watson v. Willins, 36 Miss. 331; Hays v. Fischer, 12 Otto 121; McKicken v. Perin, 20 How. 133; Larrabee v. Selby, 52 Cal. 506; Vilas v. Barton, 27 Vt. 56; State v. Giles, 10 Wis. 101. The power of a court exercising equity power to punish, as a contempt, the violation of an injunction granted by the court, or a judge thereof, has never been questioned. Neal v. Osborne, 15 How. Pr. 81; Wheeler v. Gilsey, 35 How. Pr. 139; Stimeon v. Putnam, 41 Vt. 238; Poertner v. Russell, 33 Wis. 193. The order of injunction could only be void for want of jurisdiction to issue it. If it was improperly issued, then it is obligatory until vacated, or reversed by an appellate court, and must be respected until annulled by the proper authorities. In re Cohen, 5 Cal. 494; Sullivan v. Judah, 4 Paige 442; People v. Berger, 53 N. Y. 409; Hilton v. Patterson, 18 Abb, 245.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Corliss, C. J. This appeal is from a final order made in contempt proceedings adjudging the appellant, Davis, guilty of contempt in advising the disobedience of an alleged injunction order restraining the voting of certain stock by one E. O. Faulkner at a stockholders’ meeting held to elect directors of the Argus Printing Company. The appealibility of this order is questioned. It imposed a fine of $75, and ordered that Mr. Davis stand committed to the common jail of Cass county, in this state, until such fine should be fully paid to the clerk of the court making the order. The authorities are in inextricable confusion on the question of the right to appeal in contempt
