It is said that it belongs exclusively to the court offended to judge of contempts; State v. Matthews, 37 N. H. 450; State v. McKinnon, 8 Or. 487; In re Pryor, 18 Kan. 72, 26 Am. Rep. 752; In re Williamson, 26 Pa. 9, 67 Am. Dec. 374; State.v. Anderson, 40 Ia. 207; and no other court or judge can or ought to undertake, in a collateral way, to question or review an adjudication of a contempt made by another competent juris diction; 14 East 1; Gist v. Bowman, 2 Bay (S. C.) 182; State v. Tipton, 1 Blackf. (Ind.) 166; State v. White, T. U. P. Charlt. (Ga.) 136; Cossart v. State, 14 Ark. 538; Bunch v. State, id. 544; Lockwood v. State, 1 Ind. 161; Yates v. People, 6 Johns. (N. Y.) 337; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 204, 5 L. Ed. 242; People v. Owens, 8 Utah 20, 28 Pac. 871; Seventy-Six Land & Water Co. v. Superior Court, 93 Cal. 139, 28 Pac. 813. But it has been repeatedly held that a court of superior jurisdiction may review tile de cision of one of inferior jurisdiction on a matter of contempt ; Cora. v. Newton, 1 Grant, Cas. (Pa.) 453; Ex parte Rowe, 7 Cal. 181; Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 13 Gratt. (Va.) 40; Patton v. Harris, 15 B. Mon. (Ky.) 607 ; though not on habeas corpus; Jordan v. State, 14 Tex. 436 ; see Ex parte Smith, 53 Cal. 204; Shattuck v. State, 51 Miss. 50, 24 Am. Rep. 624; see v. Jones, 114 Ill. 147, 28 N. E. 464. It should be by direct order of the court; Geisse v. Beall, 5 Wis. 227. A proceeding for contempt is regarded as a distinct and independent suit ; 22 E. L. & Eq. 150; Ex parte Langdon, 25 Vt. 680; Lyon v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 185; and irregularities in the pro ceedings are immaterial where the result is a sufficient purging of the contempt and a consequent discharge of the rule; Martin v. Burgwyn, 88 Ga. 78, 13 S. E. 958.
Though the same act constitute both a contempt and a crime, the contempt may be tried and punished by the court; U. S. v. Debs, 64 Fed. 724; affirmed by the supreme court, which held that it was competent to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts to re move or restrain obstructions to interstate commerce or the mails, though the acts were criminal in themselves, an injunction having been served, the circuit court had authority to inquire whether its orders had been dis obeyed, and finding that they had been, to enter the order of punishment, and its find ings as to the act of disobedience are not open to review on habeas corpus in the su preme court or any other; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 Sup. Ct. 900, 39 L. Ed. 1092.
Proceedings for contempt are of two classes, criminal or punitive, and civil or remedial. The former vindicates the dig nity of the courts, the latter protects, pre serves, and enforces the rights of private parties and compels obedience to orders, judgments and decrees made to enforce such rights: Wasserman v. United States, 161 Fed. 722, 88 C. C. A. 582; Garrigan v. U. S., 163 Fed. 16, 89 C. C. A. 494, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1295; when contempt proceedings are brought to enforce a civil right, the I constitutional provision that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against him self does not apply, since it is not a criminal proceeding; Patterson v. District Council, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 112.
Every member of the public "is bound to observe the restrictions of an injunction, when known, to the extent that he must not aid and abet its violation by others," nor ob struct the administration of justice; the power of the court to proceed against one so offending is inherent and indisputable; Gar rigan v. U. S., 163 Fed. 16, 89 C. C. A. 494,
23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1295, citing  L. R. 1 Ch. 545 ; In re Reese, 107 Fed. 942, 47 C. C. A. 87. There is an elementary distinction between disobedience of an injunction by parties and privies, and the conduct of oth ers in contempt of the commands of the courts; Garrigan v. U. S., 163 Fed. 16, 89 C. C. A.' 494, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1295. Ac tual notice will render one not a party guilty of contempt in violating an injunction; it is not necessary that he should have been served with a copy of the injunction decree or the writ ; In re Lennon. 166 U. S. 548, 17 Sup. Ct. 658, 41 L. Ed. 1110 ; Aldinger v. Pugh, 132 N. Y. 403, 30 N. E. 745. But pub lication in newspapers and the posting upon wagons of a teaming company of an injunc tion order forbidding interference with its teams, are not enough to charge with knowl edge thereof one not a party to the proceed ings who assists in a riot in which the teams are interfered with, such person de nying knowledge and having a presumption of innocence in his favor ; Garrigan v. U. S., 163 Fed. 16, 89 C. C. A. 494, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1295. But mere reading and giving to one not a party a copy of the decree con stitutes sufficient notice as a basis for con tempt proceedings; Fowler v. Beckman, 66 N. H. 424, 30 Atl. 1117.
Proceedings for contempt against one not a party to the cause, for disobedience of an injunction, are criminal in their nature, and the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence; they are reviewable by writ of error ; Garrignn v. U. S., 163 Fed. 16, 89 C. C. A. 494, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1295, citing Bes sette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 24 Sup. Ct. 665, 48 L. Ed. 997 ; In re Christensen Engineering Co., 194 U. S. 458, 24 Sup. Ct. 729, 48 L. Ed. 1072.
A proceeding instituted by an aggrieved party to punish the other party for contempt for affirmatively violating an injunction in the same action in which the injunction was issued, and praying for damages and costs, is a civil proceeding in contempt of which the only punishment is by fine, measured by the pecuniary injury sustained. If the main suit is discontinued, the contempt proceedings fall with it, but in such case the court may in stitute proceedings to vindicate its author ity; Gompers v. Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 31 Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874.
For a contempt out of the view and hear ing of the court, the offending party will be allowed to answer and offer evidence in de fence of the charge; Hohenadel v. Steele, 237 Ill. 229, 86 N. E. 717. At common law the sworn answer of one charged with con tempt was conclusive and discharged the con tempt ; Coleman v. State, 121 Tenn. 1, 113 S. W. 1045 ; Baird v. People, 134 Ill. App. 433.
Where a defendant violates an injunction pending an appeal, the appellate court is the proper tribunal to Punish the contempt ; Me nuez v. Candy Co., 77 Ohio 386, 83 N. E. 82, 11 Ann. Cas. 1037; an order punishing con tempt, made in the progress of a case not criminal, is interlocutory and can only be reviewed on appeal from final decree ; Doyle v. Guarantee & Ace. CO., 204 U. S, 599, 27 Sup. Ct. 313, 51 L. Ed. 641; In' re Christen sen Engineering Co., 194 U. S. 08, 24 Sup. qt. 729, 48 L. Ed. 1072.
See 20 Am. Law Reg. N. S. 81, where the subject is treated at length ; Rapalje, Con tempt ; JUDGE.
As to proceedings to compel payment of, alimony, see Staples v. Staples, 87 Wis. 592, 58 N. W. 1036, 24 L. R. A.'433.