State v. Hardie
| Decision Date | 16 February 1933 |
| Citation | 108 Fla. 437,146 So. 97 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. DAVIS v. HARDIE, Sheriff. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Original application by the State, on relation of Edgar B. Davis, for writ of habeas corpus opposed by Dan Hardie, as Sheriff of Dade county.
Writ denied without prejudice.
COUNSEL Frank Clark, Jr., and Bryant & Pittman, all of Miami, for petitioner.
Petitioner Edgar Bennett Davis, applied to the Chief Justice for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The petition on its face showed that Davis had been committed to jail for contempt of court in that he had failed to pay alimony as decreed against him. The petition further showed that after the commitment for contempt was ordered, the petitioner sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the circuit judge to review the propriety of the commitment and to obtain his release therefrom; that at a hearing on such writ of habeas corpus petitioner was remanded to jail under the commitment for contempt.
The effect of allowing the prayer of the present petition would be to order the release of Davis from the contempt commitment that was reviewed and held valid on the habeas corpus proceedings had in the circuit court.
The judgment of the circuit court remanding the prisoner to custody under the contempt commitment is res adjudicata of the lawfulness of the imprisonment under the contempt commitment. A judgment of the circuit court in a habeas corpus proceeding can only be reviewed by writ of error. Tyler v. Painter, 16 Fla. 144. A writ of habeas corpus should not be issued by the Supreme Court, or by a justice thereof, except upon a showing of reasonable grounds to apprehend that the imprisonment complained of in the application for the writ is without authority of law. Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 So. 632.
While habeas corpus may issue on a very informal application ( Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 So. 666, L. R. A 1918E, 949; Ex parte Pells, 28 Fla. 67, 9 So. 833), the writ itself should not be allowed where the petition for habeas corpus shows on its face facts conclusively rebutting the petitioner's assertion that his imprisonment is unlawful. Hanley v State, 50 Fla. 82, 39 So. 149.
In this case the remedy of the petitioner is to seek the review, by writ of error, of the judgment of the circuit court which remanded him to custody under the contempt commitment because the judgment of the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durley v. Mayo
...v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231. It even has applied that doctrine without reference to § 79.10. See State of Florida ex rel. Davis v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97. On the other hand, it has, at times, treated habeas corpus petitions as barred by § 79.10 only where the issues have ......
-
Rice v. Olson
...54 A.L.R. 271; State ex rel. Chase v. Calvird, 324 Mo. 429, 24 S.W.2d 111; Stuart v. State, 36 Ariz. 28, 282 P. 276; State ex rel. Davis v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97; Ex parte Tipton, 83 Cal.App. 742, 257 P. 445; Deaver v. State, 24 Ala.App. 377, 135 So. 604; McDowell v. Gould, 166 G......
-
Sullivan v. State ex rel. McCrory
...that the applicant is entitled to be discharged from custody. See ex parte Aulday, 113 Fla. 70, 151 So. 388; State ex rel. Davis v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 437, 146 So. 97; Ex parte Tail, 145 Neb. 268, 16 N.W.2d 161, and cases there cited; Conley v. Cox, 8 Cir., 138 F.2d 786; Helms v. Humphre......
-
Buss v. Reichman
...was limited to situations where the petitioner can show that the restraint complained of is “without authority of law.” State v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97 (1933). “[J]urisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus confers no jurisdiction to thereafter order a prisoner released or disch......