Ex Parte Calhoun
Decision Date | 11 March 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 7044.,7044. |
Citation | 91 S.W.2d 1047 |
Parties | Ex parte CALHOUN. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Fred Erisman, of Longview, for relator.
Clay Cooke, of Fort Worth, C. L. McCartney, of Brownwood, Jones & Jones, of Marshall, Julian P. Moseley, of Longview, and Carlton Smith and Leonard Cox, both of Waco, for respondent W. H. Hayes, sheriff of Gregg county.
On January 5, 1936, Mrs. C. W. Compton Calhoun, relator herein was adjudged in constructive contempt of court by the district court of Gregg county, Tex., on account of certain acts she was alleged to have committed affecting the trial of a civil case then pending in such court. Under the view we take of this case, as it now stands, it is unnecessary to go into detail with reference to such matters. It is sufficient to say that the judgment of contempt assessed against relator a jail sentence of three days, and fined her $100. Also, she was ordered to release certain civil contracts held by her, alleged to affect the trial of the civil case just mentioned. It further appears that the judgment of contempt on its face in effect provided that no commitment should issue on same until 9 a. m., January 24, 1936.
On the morning of January 24, 1936, an application for writ of habeas corpus was presented to this court for and on behalf of relator, wherein it was alleged that she was illegally restrained of her liberty by the sheriff of Gregg county, Tex., by virtue of the above judgment. On the same day the application was presented, this court granted the writ as prayed for, and ordered relator admitted to bail in the sum of $1,000.
Since the granting of the writ, the sheriff of Gregg county has filed in this court his answer, wherein he states under oath:
Relator herein has replied under oath to the answer of the sheriff. In such reply she states:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Reece
...with a judge in open court without discussion of the statutory limits on this Court's habeas jurisdiction); Ex parte Calhoun, 127 Tex. 54, 91 S.W.2d 1047, 1048–49 (1936) (orig. proceeding) (dismissing habeas jurisdiction because of contemnor's lack of restraint, but finding Court possessed ......
-
City of El Paso v. Alvarez
...in municipal court, without more, does not confine the defendant or restrain her liberty in any manner. See Ex parte Calhoun, 127 Tex. 54, 91 S.W.2d 1047, 1048 (1936) (a mere judgment of contempt will not justify the granting of a writ of habeas corpus). Thus, the bare allegation in the pet......
-
In re J.C.L.
...restraint which precludes absolute and perfect freedom of action will justify the issuance of the writ.'") (quoting Ex parte Calhoun, 127 Tex. 54, 91 S.W.2d 1047, 1048 (1936)); see also Hensley v. Mun. Court, 411 U.S. 345, 349, 93 S. Ct. 1571, 1573-74, 36 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1973) (holding that ......
-
Ex parte Ems
...on appellant. See City of El Paso v. Alvarez, 931 S.W.2d 370, 379 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, orig. proceeding) (citing Ex parte Calhoun, 91 S.W.2d 1047, 1048 (Tex. 1936)) (concluding filing of complaint in municipal court, without more, did "not confine the defendant or restrain her liberty i......