## Facts

- The Cape May & Schellinger’s Landing Railroad Company sought equitable relief against Johnson and other Cape May municipal officials (acting as the city council) to stop enactment of a municipal ordinance that threatened the company’s railroad operations.
- The company applied in the New Jersey Court of Chancery for an **order to show cause** and a **temporary restraint** preventing the council from passing the ordinance until the court could hear the matter.
- A Chancery judge issued an **ex parte** order at about midday directing the city council to **desist and refrain** from passing the identified ordinance and to **show cause** why an injunction should not issue.
- The city council was scheduled to meet **that same evening**, leaving little time to notify each council member through ordinary process.
- **Personal service of the written order could not be completed until the next day**, after the council meeting.
- The council proceeded to meet and took action on the ordinance during the period when the restraining order had been issued but before it had been served.
- The railroad company then sought to treat the council members’ conduct as a violation of the court’s restraining order and asked the court to punish them for contempt.

## Issues

1. Whether municipal officers may be punished for contempt for acting contrary to a Chancery restraining order when the order was issued before the act, but the officers had not been personally served and timely actual notice before acting was not clearly shown.

## Decision

- The Court of Chancery declined to punish the council members for contempt based on the conduct that occurred before service of the restraining order.
- The court held that contempt cannot be imposed unless the alleged contemnor was brought under the order by **service** or by **clear proof of timely actual notice** of the order and its restraint before the challenged act.
- Because service was not made until the following day, and the record did not sufficiently establish that the council members had adequate notice before the meeting, contempt sanctions were not warranted for the acts taken at that meeting.

## Legal Principles

- A person cannot be punished for contempt for disobeying an injunction or restraining order without notice of it; notice is commonly established by **personal service** of the order.
- **Actual notice** may substitute for formal service in a proper case, but it must be shown with clarity and must be received in time to allow compliance before the allegedly contemptuous act.
- A restraining order operates in personam, yet contempt power depends on proof that the alleged contemnor was bound by the order through service or sufficient notice before acting.
- Municipal officers and public bodies are subject to the same basic notice requirements as other parties when contempt is sought for violation of an equitable order.

## Conclusion

In *Cape May & Schellinger’s Landing R.R. Co. v. Johnson*, the Court of Chancery refused to hold Cape May city council members in contempt for passing an ordinance where the restraining order had been issued earlier the same day but was not served until the next day, and timely actual notice before the council acted was not adequately proven.


*Cape May & Schellinger’s Landing R.R. Co. v. Johnson*, 35 N.J. Eq. 422 (N.J. Ch. 1882)

Cape May & Schellinger’s Landing R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 35 N.J. Eq. 422 (N.J. Ch. 1882)