Cobb v. Black
| Decision Date | 31 March 1865 |
| Citation | 34 Ga. 162 |
| Parties | Jacob L. Cobb, plaintiff in error. vs. E. M. Black, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Habeas Corpus. Decided by Judge John T. Clarke, at Chambers, January 1865.
In Equity, in Randolph Superior Court, there was pending a bill for account, etc., in favor of Morris vs. Cobb and another. On the fifth of July 1861, the Judge of the Superior Court passed an order appointing one Emmerson a receiver, to receive and hold, subject to future direction, the property which this bill put in litigation. The same order required Cobb to turn over the property to the receiver within ten days after service of the order. On the twenty-fifth of August, the Judge passed another order, increasing the receiver's bond, and requiring that thereupon the defendant, Cobb, should turn over that portion of the property which still remained in his possession.
On the second, of September, at Chambers, the same Judge granted a rule nisi, calling upon Cobb to show cause before him instanter, why he should not be attached for contempt, because of his refusal to turn over to the Receiver, in pursuance of these orders, certain cotton, promissory notes, negroes, and money, described in the bill, and particularly specified in the rule nisi. To this rule Cobb made answer, in writing, that he had not, on that day, seen the Receiver; that the Receiver had not, on that day, demanded the things specified in the rule; that Cobb had not, on that day, refused to deliver them to the Receiver in person; and that, as he believed, he had not had any conversation withthe Receiver since the latter and his securities had entered into the required bond on the day preceding.
Thereupon, after hearing argument, the Judge, on the same day, made the rule absolute, at Chambers, and ordered an attachment to issue forthwith against Cobb, for contempt. The attachment was then issued by the Judge himself, as follows:
" State of Georgia,
Stewart County.
To all and singular the Sheriff's and Constables of said State.
Upon this attachment Cobb was arrested, the day after its date, and placed in the custody of Black, the defendant in error, jailor of Randolph county.
After remaining in jail until the 2d of January 1865, he applied on that day to Judge Clarke for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging in his petition, that Black, the jailor, held him unlawfully in prison, because the Judge, in the proceedings just recited, had not only transcended the powers conferred on him as a Judge in vacation, but had exceeded the jurisdiction of even the Superior Court in term time, in the length of the imprisonment imposed. To the petition wasannexed a copy of the rule nisi, and of all the proceedings thereon, down to the return of the arresting officer.
The writ was granted; and the jailor produced the body of the petitioner, and returned as the cause of his detention, the attachment described above.
At the hearing, which took place before Judge Clarke on the 13th of January, counsel for the petitioner urged that the Judge of the Superior Court could not originate at chambers a rule nisi to punish a party for an alleged contempt touching a previous order made by the Judge in vacation; that the Superior Court in term time, and it alone, could enforce obedience to such an order as that passed by the Judge, " out of Court, " on the 5th of July 1864; that the Judge, in granting the rule nisi, rendering judgment thereon, issuing the attachment, and causing Cobb to be arrested and imprisoned, transcended the powers conferred on a Judge of the Superior Court; and that, as to the length of the imprisonment, the jurisdiction of even the Superior Court in term time had been exceeded.
These positions the presiding Judge over-ruled, and gave judgment remanding Cobb to the custody of the jailor; and counsel for Cobb excepted.
B. Hill, representing Worrill and Wimberly, for plaintiff in error.
Platt, for defendant.
By the Court.—Jenkins, J. delivering the opinion.
The motion before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Rollins
...of the court, but to compel the doing of an act deemed necessary by the court. Davis, 138 Ga. at 10, 74 S.E. 830, quoting Cobb v. Black, 34 Ga. 162, 166-67 (1865). The power of imprisonment is used to compel obedience. Once the contempt is purged and the end of the law achieved, which is en......
-
Powhatan Coal & Coke Co v. Ritzjudge
...thereto, power to enforce obedience by proceedings for contempt. Children's Home Society v. State, 57 Neb. 765, 78 N. W. 265; Cobb v. Black, 34 Ga. 162; Harmon v. Wagener, 33 S. C. 487, 12 S. E. 98. This comports with the general rule that a grant of power to do a thing necessarily implies ......
-
Carey Canada, Inc. v. Hinely
...until such undeterminable time as the contemnor purges himself by future compliance with the trial court's prior order. See Cobb v. Black, 34 Ga. 162, 166(2) (1865). This concept of a "continuing contempt" exception to the statutory limitation of OCGA § 15-7-4(5) does not, however, apply to......
-
Alred v. Celanese Corp. of America
...language in the Code of 1863, and in each of the subsequent Codes. See Code of 1863, §§ 4902, 200, 4593, 4125, 4127, 242(5). In Cobb v. Black, 34 Ga. 162, decided in 1865, court had for consideration the nature of an order requiring the defendant in an equity case to turn over certain prope......