Ex Parte Gonzales
| Decision Date | 08 March 1922 |
| Docket Number | (No. 3594.) |
| Citation | 238 S.W. 635 |
| Parties | Ex parte GONZALEZ. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Don M. Jackson, of El Paso, for appellant.
The writ of habeas corpus was issued in this proceeding upon the application of relator, S. G. Gonzalez, complaining that he was restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of El Paso county in virtue of a commitment issued out of the Forty-First district court of that county, upon a judgment convicting him of contempt of court in disobeying an injunction issued in a suit for divorce against him.
On the 23d day of May, 1921, the wife of relator, Luisa Gonzalez, filed suit against him for divorce in the Sixty-Fifth district court of El Paso county. On the same day an injunction order was entered in said cause by that court, restraining relator from disposing of or incumbering or removing from the jurisdiction of the court the community property of himself and wife. No further proceedings were had in the case in the Sixty-Fifth district court until the 24th day of October, 1921, when the cause was by the judge of the Sixty-Fifth district court transferred to the Forty-First district court of El Paso county. The transfer was made by virtue of subdivision 34, article 30, 1918, Supplement Vernon's Sayles' Revised Statutes, under which, after the transfer, the Forty-First district court had jurisdiction of the case as though the suit had been originally brought in that court. Prior to the transfer, the Forty-First district court had no jurisdiction whatever of the case. It for the first time had jurisdiction of the suit after the transfer on the 24th of October, 1921.
On the 25th day of October, 1921, Luisa Gonzalez, the plaintiff in said cause, filed an affidavit therein in the Forty-First district court, which she termed, and which the court considered as, a motion for contempt, and in which she stated that the relator had disobeyed the injunction previously issued in that he had sold certain property in violation thereof, and that he was constantly removing a certain automobile beyond the jurisdiction of the court and wholly without the state, in violation of the injunction.
The contempt proceedings were heard by the Forty-First district court on October 31, 1921, on the record as contained in the verified motion of the plaintiff, Luisa Gonzalez, and the verified answer of the relator, filed therewith. No verbal evidence was introduced by either party.
On the 2d of November, 1921, the court entered judgment, finding:
"That on or about the 14th day of July, 1921, the defendant, S. G. Gonzalez, sold to one John Ford the Cosmopolitan Bar, the said Cosmopolitan Bar being personal property situated in the republic of Mexico, which was then and there the property of the community of said Luisa Gonzalez and S. G. Gonzalez, receiving therefor the sum of $5,000 on the said 14th day of July, and the sum of $5,000 on the 6th day of August, 1921, and that the conveyance of said property was in violation of the injunction aforesaid, heretofore issued in this cause on, to wit, the 23d day of May, A. D. 1921."
Upon this finding the court adjudged relator guilty of contempt of court, and ordered:
"That as punishment therefor that he be on this day committed to the county jail of El Paso county, Texas, for the period of three days, and the state of Texas do have and recover of and from the said defendant, S. G. Gonzalez, all costs in this behalf incurred, for which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Reece
...the process by which a court can exert its authority to compel obedience with one of its orders). FN7. See, e.g., Ex parte Gonzalez, 111 Tex. 399, 238 S.W. 635, 636 (1922) (orig. proceeding) (the purpose of contempt is to either “compel due decorum and respect in its presence” (i.e., direct......
-
Ex parte Barnett
...power to enforce by contempt the order to pay child support rendered by the district court of Dallas County. He cites Ex parte Gonzalez, 111 Tex. 399, 238 S.W. 635 (1922) and Ex parte Chandler, 580 S.W.2d 12 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1979) for the proposition that a transferee court......
-
Culpepper v. State
...Gretna v. Rossner, 154 La. 117, 97 So. 335, 336 (1923); Greene v. Edgington, 37 Idaho 1, 214 P. 751, 752-53 (1923); Ex parte Gonzalez, 111 Tex. 399, 238 S.W. 635, 636 (1922); Farmers State Bank of Texhoma v. State, 13 Okl.Cr. 283, 164 P. 132 Indeed, this rule is recognized in Mississippi. I......
-
Leithold v. Plass
...Bailey County is the only Court that can enforce its judgment. To support this contention appellee principally relies on Ex Parte Gonzalez, 111 Tex. 399, 238 S.W. 635, and Carlson v. Johnson (Tex.Civ.App.) 327 S.W.2d 704 (no writ history). These cases do hold that the Court granting the div......