J. SAYOU GLAPOH, Appellant-Informant, v. LORENZO BOLADO, Manager, BOLADO SAWMILLING COMPANY, Appellee-

Respondent. BILL OF INFORMATION TO HAVE RESPONDENT ADJUDGED IN CONTEMPT OF THE SUPREME COURT. Argued March 20, 1969. Decided June 16, 1969. 1. Once the necessary steps to perfect an appeal have been taken, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction in the matter, and in cases of injunction the Supreme Court has inherent authority to maintain the status quo of the parties to the appeal pending its determination, with power to punish for contempt of the Supreme Court any person violating the injunction. 2. Hearing an application for a bond, and granting it, prior to a motion to dissolve a preliminary injunction, renders the bond invalid and void. Appellant obtained an interlocutory injunction against the appellee sawmilling company, which, subsequent thereto, moved to dissolve the injunction, and at the same time applied for a bond pending the final hearing should the injunction be only temporarily dissolved by the circuit court. The lower court, prior to the hearing on the motion to dissolve, granted the application for a bond and fixed the amount, sometime thereafter dissolving finally the injunction after a hearing, from which an appeal was taken properly. During the pendency of the appeal before the appellate court, the company continued to harvest timber on the property appellant claimed was his. He brought a bill of information before the Supreme Court, the subject of this decision, asking that the respondents be punished for contempt of the Supreme Court, on the theory that a case on appeal stays all proceedings and operates to maintain parties in suits of injunction in status quo before the appellate court, so where an invalid bond has been posted, the status of the parties in the lower court, reverting to the time before dissolution because of the void bond, renders the violator in contempt of the Supreme Court, before which the matter 352 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 353 rests pending determination of the appeal in the injunction suit. The bill of information was sustained, the respondent adjudged in contempt of the Supreme Court and fined $soo.00, and further operations on the property restrained, pending determination of the appeal in the suit for injunctive relief. S. Raymond Horace for appellant-informant. Conger-Thompson for appellee-respondent. G. P. MR. JUSTICE the court. WARDSWORTH delivered the opinion of These proceedings are based on a bill of information designed to apprise this Court of certain wanton and illegal acts allegedly committed by the respondents therein named, averring, inter alia, that by these acts the respondents not only have contravened the statutes in such cases made and provided for, but assailed thereby the dignity of this Court, as the majesty of the law has been despised with impunity. The informant, in the bill of information under consideration, alleges substantially, that: on February 9, 1968, informant instituted an action of injunction against Lorenzo Bolado, manager of. the Bolado Sawmilling Company, respondent, before the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, sitting in its Equity Division, February 1968 Term, Bong County, as a result of which the judge’s order was directed to the clerk of said court, instructing him to issue an interlocutory writ of injunction, commanding respondent, his agents, and all persons acting directly or indirectly under him, to desist from further operations, thereby prohibiting, restraining and enjoining them from carrying on any sawmilling operation on the ioo acres of land owned by the informant, located on the Western side of the Gonota Nyavorquellie Road, Nyavorquellie Chiefdom, Bong County. The writ of injunction was 354 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS duly served on the superintendent of the Bolado Sawmilling Company and about fifty workers, as well as Lorenzo Bolado, the respondent. The superintendent and the workers were duly informed that an injunction had been issued against the said Bolado Sawmilling Company and that they should cease carrying on further operations. Subsequently, informant observed respondent disobeying the injunction, and called the superintendent’s attention to this fact, who said : “On the 14th instant Mr. Bolado sent a message by the driver that we should cut some pieces immediately. This was the order from Mr. Bolado for whom I am working. I did not take upon myself to disobey the Court’s order.” The defiant act of respondent was brought to the attention of the assigned Circuit Judge, then presiding over the February Term of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court, Bong County, who took no action, not even summoning respondent to appear to show cause why he should not be held in contempt. The case was assigned and argument heard and the judge handed down a decree on March 1, 1968, dissolving the injunction, to which informant excepted and prayed an appeal to the Supreme Court of Liberia, sitting in its March 1968 Term. Along with the filing of the motion for dissolution of the injunction by appellee, he filed an application for bail, which informant was not given an opportunity to contest. The judge granted the application and approved a bond in the sum of $15o.00. Despite the fact that respondent had filed a motion for dissolution of the injunction together with an application for bail, the presiding judge did not first dispose of the motion for dissolution, but granted the application for bail, which is in violation of statute. The informant has complied with all the requirements for an appeal, filing an approved bill of exceptions, filing an approved appeal bond, and a notice of appeal which has been served upon appellee and returned with proof of service by the sheriff. This Court has thereby been given jurisdiction over the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 355 injunction proceedings. But despite the fact that the trial court no longer possesses jurisdiction over these proceedings, respondent is still continuing his sawmilling operation on the premises, to the injury of the informant. Respondent contends that informant’s bill of information is lacking in legal merits to warrant his being held in contempt of court and prays that the information be overruled and that he be purged of the alleged contempt, because informant, not having suffered any irreparable injury, cannot invoke injunctive relief, especially where title is in question. With the filing of the action for an injunction, informant filed an action of ejectment during the February 1968 Term of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court. It is surprising that until now informant has made no move to have the action in ejectment tried, to test the validity of his title. Respondent has raised two issues, that the informant has averred no irreparable injury in the event the injunction is not reinstituted, and that no irreparable injury having been alleged, his suit is merely harassment. Our primary concern in passing upon the bill of information is to determine whether or not the bond under which respondent is operating is valid. Informant contends, inter alia, that “the presiding judge proceeded to grant said application for bail and approved a bond in the sum of $15o.00 without making an assignment for hearing and argument by both parties, thereby depriving informant of an opportunity of pointing out the legal defect in the application and bond and denying him his day in court.” The informant further avers that although respondent had filed a motion for dissolution of the injunction together with the application for bail, the trial judge, without first disposing of the motion for dissolution, granted the application for bail, which is in violation of our statutes. We shall now look at the statute in question. “Upon reasonable notice to the plaintiff, the de- 356 LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS fendant may file a motion to dissolve or modify the writ, and the court shall hear the motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice permit. The court may dissolve the writ outright at such hearing or may condition dissolution of the writ pending final hearing of the issues on the giving of a bond by the defendant for any damage caused the plaintiff by the defendant’s action after dissolution of the writ if on final hearing a permanent injunction is granted. . . .” Civil Procedure Law, 1956 Code 6:1084. (in part). It is obvious that the court may condition dissolution of a writ pending final hearing upon issuance of a bond. In this case the application for bail preceded the hearing of the motion for dissolution of the injunction, a fact not denied by respondent. Moreover, the trial judge dissolved the injunction outright subsequent to the granting of bail. This act on part of the judge left no room for the granting of bail. Simpson v. Obeidi, cited by respondent in support of his position, is not analogous to the instant case, in that the judge therein approved a bond for $8,000.00, a much higher amount than the small sum in the bond in this case. Besides, Obeidi was making substantial improvements on the premises, while in this case respondent is diminishing the assets of the premises. Once the steps necessary to perfect an appeal have been taken, the trial court no longer has jurisdiction in the case, for it has then been acquired by the appellate court, and contempt shown by a party thereafter is in contempt of this Court. This Court in Karpeh-Buchanan v. Buchanan-Ratazzi, 15 L.L.R. Soo (1964) , makes clear that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction of a proceeding on information of violation of an injunction when the inferior court which issued the injunction has been divested of jurisdiction by completion of an appeal to the Supreme Court, and when the LIBERIAN LAW REPORTS 357 Supreme Court has acquired jurisdiction by completion of an appeal from an order dismissing an injunction, the Court has inherent authority to maintain the status quo of the parties to the appeal by punishing for contempt any person who intentionally violates the injunction. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, the bond under which respondent is operating is invalid and void. The informant has established the facts alleged in his bill of information, and it is hereby sustained and the respondent adjudged guilty of contempt of Court and fined in the sum of $5oo.00, to be paid over to the marshal immediately as of the date of the mandate to the court below, with costs of these proceedings ; and he, and all persons operating under the respondent, are hereby ordered to desist from further operation until the appeal in the injunction suit pending before the Supreme Court is terminated. That upon the payment of the fine by respondent the marshal shall deposit it with the Internal Revenue authorities, obtain an official receipt therefor and exhibit it to His Honor, the Chief Justice. And it is hereby so ordered. Information sustained, appelleerespondent adjudged in contempt of the Supreme Court and the preliminary injunction reinstated pending determination of appeal in the suit for injunctive relief.