Ex Parte Cox

Decision Date03 May 1939
Docket NumberNo. 2214-7271.,2214-7271.
Citation127 S.W.2d 443
PartiesEx parte COX.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

This is an original habeas corpus proceeding instituted in this Court by the relator, W. T. Cox, seeking release from a commitment issued out of one of the district courts in Dallas county. On May 1, 1937, a restraining order was issued against relator and other persons not necessary here to name, commanding them "to desist and refrain from operating, maintaining, aiding, abetting, causing to exist or continuing any physical endurance contest at the premises known as the Sportatorium in the County of Dallas, State of Texas, located at the corner of Cadiz and Industrial Boulevard therein or at any other place in Dallas county, in competition for prizes, awards or admission fees in violation of the laws of the State of Texas; and from conducting, aiding, abetting, and continuing in operation or causing to exist, any contest of whatsoever nature which necessitates physical exertion continuously or intermittently over a period of time longer than 24 hours wherein the same entries or contestants participate in competition for prizes, awards or admission fees, and from conducting two or more contest in which the same entries or contestants engage, whereby they walk, run, dance, jump or move about continuously or intermittently with a period of one hundred sixty eight hours in competition for prizes, awards or admission fees, etc."

Two days thereafter, on May 3, 1937, the district attorney of Dallas County filed in the court out of which the restraining order was issued an instrument indorsed Application for Writs of Attachment, alleging, in substance, that the relator, on the day the restraining order was served upon him, made public announcement that the performances named in the restraining order would go on as in the past without any change or interruption, and that by virtue of said public announcement the relator had deliberately declared his intention to violate the order of the court and would violate same unless the court should issue a wit of attachment immediately. The application further stated that the "very purpose and purport of said restraining order would be voided and circumvented if a hearing is not had immediately and for such reason an attachment for the persons of said defendants to appear herein instanter is imperative and necessary." On the same day the writ of attachment prayed for was issued and served. A hearing was had on May 3d and 4th, at which time the matter was temporarily passed when the relator appeared and promised the court that he would not further violate the order. Thereafter, on May 8, 1937, the court had a further hearing resulting in a decree that relator was in contempt of court and ordering that he be committed to the Dallas county jail until he should purge himself of such contempt by depositing with the clerk of the court $5,000 in cash, conditioned that he would not violate the court's order directly or indirectly.

The relator made application to this court for a writ of habeas corpus and upon the oral submission of the case he was discharged by an order announced from the bench without any written opinion, the court being of the opinion that the order of commitment was void on its face. The decree of this court discharging relator was announced on May 19, 1937. On that same day, while relator was in Austin, and without any further notice to him, the trial court entered the order complained of in this proceeding. That order, after reciting the history of the case, made the following decree:

"And it further...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ex parte Winfree
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1953
    ...proceedings, is unverified. Ex parte White, 149 Tex. 155, 229 S.W.2d 1002; Ex parte Freeman, 144 Tex. 392, 191 S.W.2d 6; Ex parte Cox, 133 Tex. 152, 127 S.W.2d 443; Ex parte Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 10, 123 S.W.2d 306, 311, 126 S.W.2d 626; Ex parte Sturrock, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 307, 189 S.W.487; Ex part......
  • Ex parte White, A-2628
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1950
    ...9 Tex.Jur. 'Contempt' § 34; annotations, 2 A.L.R. 225; 118 A.L.R. 155. The holding in the Scott case has been followed in Ex parte Cox, 133 Tex. 152, 127 S.W.2d 443, and Ex parte Freeman, 144 Tex. 392, 191 S.W.2d In Ex parte Hill, 122 Tex. 80, 82, 52 S.W.2d 367, 368, there is an indication ......
  • Ex parte Rodriguez, 18055
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • June 8, 1978
    ...criminal in nature, and this is true regardless of whether they arise out of criminal or civil actions. Ex parte Cox, 133 Tex. 152, 127 S.W.2d 443 (Tex.Comm'n App. 1939, opinion adopted). The cases of Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.1976) and Ex parte Stringer, 546 S.W.2d 837 (Tex.Civ......

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