Ex Parte Calhoun

Decision Date11 March 1936
Docket NumberNo. 7044.,7044.
Citation91 S.W.2d 1047
PartiesEx parte CALHOUN.
CourtTexas 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.

CRITZ, Justice.

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:

"That he is the duly elected and qualified sheriff of Gregg county, Texas, and has been for the past three years;

"That he is full well cognizant of the persons that have been incarcerated in the jail and were in January of 1936;

"That he knows it to be a fact that he has never had any order or commitment to put Mrs. W. C. Compton Calhoun in jail and knows, further, that Mrs. W. C. Compton Calhoun has never been in jail in Gregg county, Texas, and was not in jail on January 24, 1936, nor on January 25, 1936. Affiant had not arrested Mrs. W. C. Compton Calhoun on January 24th, 1936, nor on January 25, 1936, and did not have her under any kind of confinement or restraint on such dates.

"Affiant further says that he knows Mrs. W. C. Compton Calhoun personally and has known her for the past three years and during all of such three years that affiant has never had any order or commitment to put Mrs. W. C. Compton Calhoun in jail and that he knows that she has never been in jail in Gregg county, Texas, during that period of time."

Relator herein has replied under oath to the answer of the sheriff. In such reply she states:

"My name is Mrs. C. W. Compton Calhoun, I am the respondent in a certain contempt proceeding held in the 124th District Court of Gregg county, Texas, and the same person for whom an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was filed in the Supreme Court of Texas on the 24th day of January, A. D. 1936.

"On the 3rd day of January A. D. 1936 at the conclusion of a contempt proceeding against me in the case of Zanie Howell Jackson et al. vs. Ann Oliver Hart et al. in the 124th District Court of Gregg county, Texas, the Honorable Will C. Hurst Judge of said Court, after hearing the evidence advised me in open court in words to this effect `the Court is not certain that the evidence shows you to be in contempt of court, but the testimony shows acts that are, at least, contemptible, and I am going to allow you a reasonable time to prepare the record in this case to present to a higher court.' It was my understanding that the Court had adjudged me in contempt of court, I immediately ordered a transcript of the testimony from Mrs. Ben Allred, official Court Reporter of said Court paying for the same the sum of $100.00, and thereafter I was advised that Judge Will C. Hurst had adjudged me in contempt of court assessing a fine of $100.00 ordering that I be placed in jail for three days and that the instrument described in the contempt proceedings be by me removed from recording and released within five days. That such judgment was entered on the 5th day of January, 1936, but a stay order was made on the same so that it would become effective at 9 A. M. on January 24th, 1936.

"On Friday January 24th, 1936, about nine o'clock I reported to the Sheriff's office at Longview, Gregg...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • In re Reece
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • May 27, 2011
    ...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
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • September 19, 1996
    ...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.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 2012
    ...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
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 8, 2017
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT