
    Davis et al. v. State ex rel.
    Contempt— When Judges withoutjurisdictiou to punish—Mandamus —Circuit Court.
    
    Where a Circuit Court has awarded a peremptory writ of mandamus which the defendant neglects or refuses to obey, proceedings instituted to compel obedience to the writ and to punish him as for contempt, on account of such neglect or refusal, should be had before the court, the judges thereof, sitting at chambers, having no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
    (Decided April 11, 1893.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Ricking county.
    A proceeding in mandamus was brought in the circuit court of Ricking county against the plaintiffs in error to-compel them, as members of the county board of elections of said county, to sign an abstract, alleged to have been made out by such board, of the votes cast in said county at the November election for the year 1891, for the office of state senator of the joint 15th and 16th senatorial districts of this state, of which said county of Ricking was a part. Upon issue joined the court found for the relator, and awarded him a peremptory writ, directed to the plaintiffs in error, commanding them to sign the abstract in question. This they failed and refused to do. After the adjournment of the circuit court in Ricking county, and while the judges thereof were in the adjoining county of Muskingum, complaint in writing was made to them as such judges, of the refusal of the plaintiffs in error to obey the commands of the peremptory writ of mandamus. Whereupon an qrder was issued under the hand of the judges of said court, commanding the plaintiffs in error to appear before said judges, sitting at chambers at the courthouse in the county of Muskingum, to show cause why they had not obeyed the commands of said peremptory-writ of mandamus.
    
      Samuel J. Davis, only, appeared. A motion to dismiss the proceedings and discharge the respondents for want of jurisdiction was made by their counsel and overruled by the judges; to which ruling exceptions were taken. The matter was then heard upon testimony, and the plaintiffs in error ordered to comply with the commands of the peremptory writ under pain of imprisonment until they should do so.
    
      F. F. D. Albery, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      F. H. Southard, S. M. Winn, and Swartz & Allen, for defendant in error.
   By thu Court.'

Whatever the power may be of a court, or a judge sitting at chambers, and whether that power be inherent or conferred by section 5639, Revised Statutes, to punish summarily for contempt, persons guilty of misbehavior in the. presence of or so near the judge or court as to obstruct the administration of justice, the authority thus conferred does not include the power to punish as for a contempt, the disobedience of orders like the one under consideration. The authority to enforce orders of that character by summary proceedings is conferred by section 5640, Revised Statutes; and that section, as well as the eight succeeding sections of the chapter of the code relating to proceedings in contempt, all contemplate that the power shall be exercised by the court and not by the judges thereof, sitting at chambers.

The judges, therefore, sitting at chambers, were without jurisdiction in the premises, and the motion to dismiss the proceedings should have been sustained.

This summary jurisdiction given by section 5640, Revised Statutes, is clearly distinguishable from the authority of judges sitting at chambers in matters of equitable cognizance, as recognized by this court in Cincinnati, Sandusky & Cleveland Railroad Company v. Sloan, 31 Ohio St. 1,

Judgment reversed and proceedings dismissed.  