Ex parte Morris
Decision Date | 19 July 1961 |
Docket Number | No. A-8439,A-8439 |
Citation | 162 Tex. 530,349 S.W.2d 99 |
Parties | Ex parte Nina Ruth Elmore MORRIS, Relator. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Jerry Murad, Fort Worth, for relator.
Alford J. Russell, Fort Worth, for respondent.
This original habeas corpus proceeding is a sequel to Ex parte Elmore, Tex., 342 S.W.2d 558. Nina Ruth Elmore Morris, relator, and her former husband had there been held in contempt by the district court for failing to deliver a freezer and certain other personal property to the sheriff as previously directed by the court. At the contempt hearing held on August 16, 1960, relator testified that she did not know where the property was located and had not had the same in her possession for almost two years. We discharged both parties on the ground that there was no evidence to authorize a finding that they were in possession of the property and able to comply with the delivery order.
While that proceeding was pending here, the District Judge ordered a member of the Ft. Worth Bar to conduct an investigation and initiate an inquiry into the conduct of the parties and their testimony. An affidavit was filed by such attorney in the district court charging that relator had given false testimony at the former hearing, and relator was cited to appear and show cause why she should not be held in contempt for perjury. The evidence introduced at the ensuing hearing disclosed that relator stored the freezer with two friends in 1959. It remained in their possession until removed by relator at their request after they read newspaper accounts of the first contempt hearing. Relator's attorney admitted, in effect, that her testimony given at such hearing was false, and she subsequently surrendered the freezer and other property in accordance with the earlier court order.
After the second hearing, the district court adjudged relator guilty of contempt for knowingly giving perjured testimony. The punishment assessed was a fine of $100 and three days in jail. An allowance of $2,500 was also made to the investigating attorney and charged as court costs. The contempt decree directs that relator remain in jail for three days and thereafter until the $100 fine and all costs are paid. Relator again applied to this Court for a writ of habeas corpus. We granted the writ and ordered her admitted to bail pending a final decision. Upon further consideration we have concluded that the writ was improperly granted because the Supreme Court has no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in this type of case.
Unlike the Court of Criminal Appeals, we do not have general original jurisdiction to grant writs of habeas corpus. Article V, Section 3, of the Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St., provides that 'the Supreme Court and the Justices thereof shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, as may be prescribed by law * * *.' Article 1737, Vernon's Ann.Tex.Civ.Stat., authorizes us to issue the writ where 'any person is restrained in his liberty by virtue of any order, process or commitment issued by any court or judge on account of the violation of any order, judgment or decree theretofore made, rendered or entered by such court or judge in any civil cause.'
As pointed out in Ex parte Jackson, 113 Tex. 58, 252 S.W. 149, the statute limits our power in the language just stated, and we may inquire only into restraint brought about by an order or process of the court issued because of the violation of some order, judgment or decree in a civil case. See also Ex parte Green, 116 Tex. 515, 295 S.W. 910. The following excerpt from the opinion in the Jackson case is apposite here:
Another proceeding with a somewhat similar history is Ex parte Jones, Tex.Cr.App., 163...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Reece
...Court lacks jurisdiction to review a sentence of confinement by way of writ of habeas corpus, even in a civil case. Ex parte Morris, 162 Tex. 530, 349 S.W.2d 99, 100 (1961) (orig. proceeding). We have previously indicated that a petition for writ of habeas corpus is generally the only metho......
-
Ex parte Hosken
...been construed upon several occasions by our Supreme Court with the decisions finally being brought into harmony in Ex parte Morris, 162 Tex. 530, 349 S.W.2d 99, 101 (1961), where the court concluded its review by saying: 'Our original habeas corpus jurisdiction is limited thereby to cases ......
-
Ex parte Powell, 09-94-199
...498 S.W.2d 144 (Tex.1973); Ex parte McDonald, 441 S.W.2d 828 (Tex.1969); Ex parte Hofmayer, 420 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Morris, 162 Tex. 530, 349 S.W.2d 99 (1961). Prior to 1991, the Court of Appeals writ power was limited to restraints imposed by violations of a court's order, judg......
-
In re Reece, 09-0520
...American-Statesman, Feb. 18, 2003, at A10. 106. Tex. Const. art. V, § 3(a). 107. Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.002(e). 108. See Ex parte Morris, 349 S.W.2d 99, 101 (Tex. 1961) (orig. proceeding) (“[T]he statute limits our power in the language just stated, and we may inquire only into restraint brou......