Ex parte Campbell, B--291

Citation417 S.W.2d 585
Decision Date19 July 1967
Docket NumberNo. B--291,B--291
PartiesEx parte John CAMPBELL, Relator.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Gerald J. Smith, El Paso, for relator.

Pearson & Speer, D. Clark Hughes, El Paso, for respondent.

WALKER, Justice.

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding. It arises out of a divorce action in which John Campbell, relator, was ordered to pay, as temporary alimony and for child support, $150.00 on March 31, 1967, $150.00 on April 7, 1967, and a like amount on the 7th day of each succeeding month thereafter. The wife filed an application to hold relator in contempt for failing to comply with this order. After a hearing at which both parties appeared in person and by their attorneys, the district court entered a judgment reading, in part, as follows:

'It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the Respondent, John Campbell, be, and he is hereby held guilty of wilful contempt of this Court by reason of his failure and refusal to make the payment on April 7, A.D. 1967, in full, his having only paid $50.00, being in arrears in the the amount of $100.00, and that his punishment for such contempt is here affixed by ordering him immediately committed to the County Jail of El Paso County, Texas, until the sum of $250.00 is paid in full, plus all costs in this behalf expended, or until the further order of this Court.'

Relator was taken into custody and confined pursuant to this order until he was released upon our granting his application for a writ of habeas corpus. He contends that the order is void under the authority of Ex Parte Procter, Tex.Sup., 398 S.W.2d 917. There the contempt judgment did not recite the amount of the arrearage and did not purport to assess a fine but did fix the punishment at confinement for three days. It then provided that the husband should pay $550.00 to the wife as child support and further directed that he be released from custody upon the payment of such amount plus costs. The husband applied to us for a writ of habeas corpus after serving the three days in jail. We held that the judgment was void to the extent that he was required to pay $550.00 to obtain his release, because it did not appear that the same was ordered either by way of punishment or for the purpose of compelling compliance with the order he was alleged to have violated.

In our opinion the Proctor case is not controlling here. The order now under attack recites that relator was $100.00 in arrears and then directs that h...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Luttrell v. El Paso Cnty.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • July 26, 2018
    ...the contemnor was entitled to be discharged upon the payment of the maximum fine amounts in his two cases); see also Ex parte Campbell , 417 S.W.2d 585, 586-87 (Tex. 1967) (court granted petition for writ of habeas corpus where the trial court entered a judgment of contempt in excess of the......
  • Luttrell v. El Paso Cnty.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • December 20, 2017
    ...the contemnor was entitled to be discharged upon the payment of the maximum fine amounts in his two cases); see also Ex parte Campbell, 417 S.W.2d 585, 586-87 (Tex. 1967) (court granted petition for writ of habeas corpus where the trial court entered a judgment of contempt in excess of the ......
  • Rosser v. Squier
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1995
    ...lacks jurisdiction to assess a fine of more than $500 for each contempt. Ex parte Carey, 704 S.W.2d 13, 14 (Tex.1986); Ex parte Campbell, 417 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.1967). The fine beyond the maximum is void. For six counts, the maximum fine is Without hearing argument, a majority of the court con......
  • Ex parte Carey
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1986
    ...Under TEX. GOV'T. CODE ANN. Sec. 21.001(b) the district court could not assess a fine of more than $500 for contempt. In Ex parte Campbell, 417 S.W.2d 585 (Tex.1967), we held that a judgment of contempt assessing a fine of more than the statutory maximum was void insofar as it exceeded the ......

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