Cobb v. State, 12601.

• Decision Date: 11 January 1939
• Docket Number: No. 12601.,12601.
• Parties: COBB. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

187 Ga. 448

200 S.E. 796

COBB.
v.
STATE.

No. 12601.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Jan. 11, 1939.

[200 S.E. 796]Syllabus by the Court.

The power of a constitutional court to define and classify contempts of court is not limited by the Code, § 24-105, which reads in part as follows: "The powers of the several courts to issue attachments and inflict summary punishment for contempt of court shall extend only to cases of misbehavior of any person or persons in the presence of said courts or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice."

Certified question from Court of Appeals.

Contempt proceeding by the State against one Cobb, wherein the Court of Appeals certified a question to the Supreme Court.

Question answered.

The Court of Appeals certified to the Supreme Court the following question: "Is the power of a constitutional court to define and classify contempts of court limited by the Code, § 24-105, the material part of which is as follows: 'The powers of the several courts to issue attachments and inflict summary punishment for contempt of court shall extend only to cases of misbehavior of any person or persons in the presence of said courts or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of Justice'? Attention is invited to the following decisions: Bradley v. State, 111 Ga. 168, 36 S.E. 630, 50 L.R.A. 691, 78 Am. St.Rep. 157; Hooper v. Martin, 54 Ga. 648, 650; In re Fite, 11 Ga.App. 665, 76 S.E. 397; Townsend v. State, 54 Ga.App. 627, 188 S.E. 560."

Dekle & Dekle, of Millen, T. J. Evans, of Sylvania, and Deal & Renfroe, of Statesboro, for plaintiff in error.

W. G. Neville, Sol. Gen., R. Lee Moore, Prince H. Preston, Jr., J. J. E. Anderson, and D. C. Jones, all of Statesboro, Chas. E. Anderson, D. A. Bragg, L. P. Strickland, Milton A. Carlton, and Edgar L. Lane, all of Millen, E. K. Overstreet, Jr., of Sylvania, Howard, Tiller & Howard, of Atlanta, and Fred B. Davis and Oliver & Oliver, all of Savannah, for the State.

GRICE, Justice.

The case of Hooper v. Martin, 54 Ga. 648, 650, was evidently cited by the Court of Appeals through inadvertence instead of the case of Harrell v. Word, 54 Ga. 649. Counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the case of Harrell v. Word, supra, necessitates an affirmative answer to the question propounded. They rely on the following portion of the opinion: "The power of the courts to punish for contempt in Georgia, is limited. The constitution declares that it shall be limited, and requires legislation to prescribe the limits: Code, section 5009. The legislature of the state has prescribed those limits: Code, section 4711. That section confines the power to cases in the presence of the courts, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, the misbehavior of any of the officers of said courts in their official transactions, and the disobedience or resistance by any officer, party, juror, witness, or other person, to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of said courts. So far as persons other than officers are concerned, the limit to the power confines the court, in cases like this at bar, to the disobedience or resistance of such person to the writ or process." Harrell v. Word, supra, page 651. The facts in that case were these: A tract of land was offered for sale, regularly, under final process of the court, by Harrell, the sheriff of Stewart County, and bought in by Shepard as the highest and best bidder at a very inadequate price compared with its proved value. The plaintiffs in fi. fa. moved a rule against the sheriff, the defendant in fi. fa., and the purchaser, to show cause why the sale should not be set aside and the deed canceled on the ground of fraud and collusion. The defendants answered the rule and denied the fraud and collusion. The court tried the question summarily by written affidavits on the part of the movants, but allowed the...