## Facts

- A mortgage foreclosure suit against the Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railway Company was filed in federal circuit court.
- The court appointed a receiver (Jan. 1875) to take possession of and operate the railroad as an officer of the court.
- During the July 1877 railroad strike, TP&W’s own employees remained willing to operate trains but were blocked by strikers and others not employed by TP&W.
- The receiver obtained a court order authorizing the U.S. marshal to maintain possession of the railroad property in the receiver’s hands.
- Notices were posted in Peoria stating the railroad was in the custody of the court and warning that interference would be punished summarily.
- Despite the order and notices, a crowd in Peoria used threats and force to seize control of trains at the depot and stop operations.
- The court initiated summary contempt proceedings against the individuals who interfered with the receiver’s operation of the railroad.

## Issues

1. Whether interference by nonparty strikers with railroad operations conducted by a court-appointed receiver constitutes contempt of court when the acts occur outside the courtroom.
2. Whether such interference with property in the court’s custody may be punished summarily through contempt sanctions, including imprisonment.

## Decision

- The court held that railroad property operated by a receiver is in the possession of the court.
- The court found that persons who, by force or intimidation, prevent the receiver’s employees from operating the railroad commit contempt of court, even if they are not parties to the foreclosure case.
- The court ruled the contempt could be addressed summarily, as though committed in the court’s presence.
- The court imposed imprisonment for the contempt; it later reduced or remitted sentences after circumstances changed.

## Legal Principles

- Property placed in receivership is in custodia legis; interference with that property interferes with the court’s possession and authority.
- Obstructing a receiver (a court officer) in carrying out court-directed operations constitutes contempt of court.
- Third parties with notice who use force or intimidation to prevent a receiver’s employees from working may be punished for contempt even without being named in the underlying decree.
- Certain forms of extrinsic interference with property in the court’s custody may be punished summarily by contempt proceedings, including incarceration.

## Conclusion

The court treated the receiver’s control and operation of the railroad as the court’s own possession and authority, holding that nonparty strikers who forcibly obstructed train operations committed contempt punishable through summary proceedings and imprisonment, subject to later mitigation of sentences.


Secor v. Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Ry. Co., 21 F. Cas. 968 (C.C.N.D. Ill. 1877)