## Facts

- Daniel O’Connell was involved in marital litigation concerning divorce and rights to the family residence.
- In the course of the litigation, the trial court issued an order (injunction) requiring O’Connell to vacate the marital home and not enter or reside there while the case remained pending.
- O’Connell appealed from the injunctive order but continued to live in the house despite the court’s directive.
- The trial court adjudged O’Connell in contempt for willfully disobeying the injunction and ordered him confined.
- O’Connell filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Appeal, seeking release from custody on the ground that the contempt commitment was unlawful.

## Issues

1. Whether habeas corpus may be used to obtain release from confinement imposed for contempt based on violation of an injunction, where the trial court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter.
2. Whether the injunction excluding O’Connell from the marital residence remained a valid, enforceable order despite O’Connell’s appeal from the order (and any asserted stay based on the appeal).
3. Whether the contempt commitment was void so as to justify discharge on habeas corpus.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal denied habeas corpus relief and refused to order O’Connell released from custody.
- The court treated the injunction as a valid, enforceable order and held that O’Connell’s continued occupancy in defiance of that order supported the contempt adjudication.
- The court held that the pendency of an appeal did not, on these facts, suspend the operation of the decree or order in a manner that would excuse disobedience or make the contempt judgment void.
- Because the contempt judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction, habeas corpus did not provide a basis to set it aside.

## Legal Principles

- Habeas corpus is not a substitute for appellate review of a contempt adjudication; it generally reaches only contempt commitments that are void for lack of jurisdiction or because the underlying order is void on its face.
- A party may not ignore an injunction on the theory that it is erroneous; unless and until it is set aside through proper review, it is binding and enforceable.
- The filing of an appeal does not automatically suspend the effect of an equitable decree or injunctive order in a way that restores prior rights or authorizes conduct the injunction forbids; absent a legally effective stay, the order remains operative.
- When a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the person, and issues a clear injunctive order within its authority, willful disobedience may be punished by contempt, and the resulting confinement will not be disturbed on habeas corpus merely because the contemnor disputes the order’s correctness.

## Conclusion

In re O’Connell holds that a husband jailed for contempt after violating an injunction barring him from the marital home was not entitled to release on habeas corpus, because the injunction remained enforceable notwithstanding his appeal and the contempt commitment was not void for lack of jurisdiction.


In re O'Connell, 75 Cal. App. 292 (1925)