Ex parte Hodges, C-739

Decision Date16 December 1981
Docket NumberNo. C-739,C-739
PartiesEx parte William R. HODGES, Relator.
CourtTexas Supreme Court

Johnson & Milligan, Barton T. Westmoreland, Houston, for relator.

Richie & Greenberg, David D. Peden, Jr., Houston, for respondent.

WALLACE, Justice.

Relator, William R. Hodges, (Hodges) brought this original habeas corpus proceeding after the district court held him in contempt and committed him to jail for ten days in addition to ordering him to pay a $300 fine. The question before us is whether the terms of an order appointing receiver are definite and certain enough to be enforced by contempt when Hodges refused to comply with certain requests by the receiver. We order Hodges discharged.

Hodges is President and Chief Operating Officer of Game Peddler, Inc. (Game Peddler). Game Peddler owns and operates several retail stores specializing in electronic games. In his individual capacity, Hodges is personal guarantor of part of Game Peddler's indebtedness. In the underlying action, Game Peddler sued Jimmy Que, one of its secured creditors in the indebtedness which Hodges guarantees, and Que counterclaimed. Following several hearings, which are not pertinent to this cause, the district court appointed a receiver of all of Game Peddler's inventory. The pertinent parts of the order are:

David D. Peden, Jr., is appointed receiver.

The receiver may appoint deputy receivers or agents which deputy and agents may be from among the employees of the parties to this litigation.

Receiver is empowered to take possession of all personalty determined preliminarily by the court to be security for debts of Peddler owing to Que ....

The receiver is ordered to preserve the property.

The receiver shall, in his discretion, sell items out of the inventory in his possession ....

The receiver shall take a physical inventory of the merchandise held under this order, shall ascertain from the parties' records the wholesale direct cost and the proposed retail market price of each item and shall report these compilations to the court ....

The order did not direct Game Peddler, or Hodges, or any other officer, or employee of the corporation to do anything whatever.

The receiver, David D. Peden, Jr., filed four separate Motions for Contempt, the fourth of which was heard by the district court and pursuant to said hearing, the Court entered a judgment of contempt finding as follows:

The court further finds that William R. Hodges is guilty of contempt in that he is President and chief operating officer of Game Peddler, Inc., that he had notice of the orders of April 20, and 24, 1981 (the original order appointing receiver and the amended order appointing receiver) appointing and empowering the receiver to act in this cause, that William R. Hodges through his actions and failure to take action, individually and as President and chief operating officer of Game Peddler, Inc. deliberately obstructed and prevented the receiver from discharging his lawful duties contained in said orders, by refusing to turn over any of the daily receipts and records of the daily receipts of Game Peddler, Inc., on April 30, 1981, and further refusing to permit the taking of a physical inventory of the Game Peddler, Inc., at the offices of the Game Peddler, Inc., in Houston, Harris County, Texas, on April 24, 1981. (Emphasis added).

Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.1967), sets out the guidelines to be followed in determining...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Ritchie v. Rupe
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 20, 2014
    ...the Court's order appointing him,” but, “[t]he order itself must comply with the statute authorizing such appointment.” Ex parte Hodges, 625 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex.1981) (because statute did not authorize court to empower receiver to supplement or issue court orders, party's failure to comply......
  • Ex parte Chambers, 94-0495
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • June 15, 1995
    ...know exactly what duties and obligations are imposed upon him. Ex parte MacCallum, 807 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Tex.1991); Ex parte Hodges, 625 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex.1981); Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex.1967). Chambers argues that nonpayment by the corporation cannot result in his own cont......
  • Ex parte Rose, 69265
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • May 16, 1984
    ...the person who may be held in contempt will readily know exactly what duties or obligations are imposed upon him. Also see Ex parte Hodges, 625 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.1981). In Ex parte Duncan, 42 Tex.Cr. 661, 62 S.W. 758 (Tex.Cr.App.1901), this Court stated the following: "Where the court seeks t......
  • Cantu, In re, s. 13-97-550-C
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 12, 1997
    ...or conjecture. The allegedly contemptuous acts must be directly contrary to the express terms of the court order. Ex Parte Hodges, 625 S.W.2d 304 (Tex.1981). On the other hand, a court order need not be "full of superfluous terms and specifications adequate to counter any flight of fancy a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Credit and Collections
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Small-firm Practice Tools. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 5, 2022
    ...power is derived from the court’s order. The order itself must comply with the statute authorizing appointment. [ Ex parte Hodges , 625 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex. 1981).] If the court’s order allows, the receiver can run the business, bring lawsuits, collect and sell assets, seize bank accounts,......
  • Chapter 8-9 Receivership
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Texas Commercial Causes of Action Claims Title Chapter 8 Equitable and Extraordinary Relief
    • Invalid date
    ...Aluminum & Glass Co. Inc., 13-07-00483-CV, 2016 WL 747893, at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 25, 2016, no pet.).[342] Ex parte Hodges, 625 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex. 1981).[343] Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Gay, 26 S.W. 599, 601-02 (Tex. 1894) aff'd sub nom. Texas & PRy. Co v. Gay, 167 U.S. 745 (Tex......

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