Ex parte Proctor, A-11013
| Decision Date | 26 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. A-11013,A-11013 |
| Citation | 398 S.W.2d 917 |
| Parties | Ex parte Charles Edward PROCTOR. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Sam Burns, Houston, for relator.
Rex Henger, Houston, for respondent.
Pending an action for divorce, Charles Edward Proctor, the relator, was ordered to pay to his wife the sum of $30 per week for the support of a minor child. In April of 1965, the wife, after the divorce, filed a complaint stating that Proctor had failed to make the payments and alleging that he was delinquent in the amount of $670. The court thereupon issued an order to Proctor commanding him to appear and show cause why he should not be held to be in contempt. Proctor was served with a copy of the wife's complaint and the court's show-cause order.
On June 25, 1965, the Court of Domestic Relations No. 2 of Harris County entered a judgment upon a printed form. It began by stating that Proctor stood charged with contempt for failure to pay the sum of $30 per week. It does not, however, find or recite the amount in which Proctor was in arrears in his payment. The judgment then recites due service upon Proctor and says that after hearing the evidence and argument of counsel, the court was of the opinion that Proctor was in contempt because of his failure to make the child support payments, and the court so found.
Then the printed-form judgment states, with the words filled in the blanks, as follows: '* * * and his punishment for such contempt is hereby fixed by assessing against him a fine of $_____ and commiting him to the County Jail of Harris County, Texas, for 3 days, and it is further Ordered that the said Charles Edward Proctor should pay the sum of $550 as child support payments to Sidonia Ruth Proctor (the wife), and also by paying all costs incurred herein, and upon such payments, the said Charles Edward Proctor shall be released from custody.'
Proctor served his three days in jail but has not paid the $550 and costs. He sought and obtained an original writ of habeas corpus from this Court. He was released on bond pending the decision of this Court.
(1) The printed form in question is exactly the same form, and issued by the same court, as that used in the case of Ex parte Savelle, Jr., 392 S.W.2d 113 (Tex.Sup.1965). The only difference is that in Savelle, the form read, 'and it is further Ordered that the said George Monroe Savelle, Jr., may purge himself of such contempt by paying the sum of $300.00 * * *.' In the case at bar, the form...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Barnett
...that "the order should clearly state in what respect the court's order has been violated" has not been satisfied. Ex parte Proctor, 398 S.W.2d 917, 918 (Tex.1966). The requirement is one of due process. The judgment or order of contempt must conform to the grounds set forth in the notice gi......
-
Santibanez v. Wier McMahon & Co.
...to purge himself so as to be released from jail." Ex Parte McClain, 762 S.W.2d 238, 240 (Tex.Ct.App.1988); see also Ex parte Proctor, 398 S.W.2d 917 (Tex.1966). The district court's order meets this requirement by providing that Thompson is being held in contempt for avoiding the court's tu......
-
In re Fountain
...out exactly what duties and obligations are imposed and what the contemnor can do to purge the contempt. Id. (citing Ex parte Proctor, 398 S.W.2d 917, 918 (Tex. 1966)). Generally, in the contempt context, the order or motion must be clear and unambiguous, which means the order or motion mus......
-
In re Houston
...must spell out exactly what duties and obligations are imposed and what the contemnor can do to purge the contempt. Ex parte Proctor, 398 S.W.2d 917, 918 (Tex. 1966); Durham, 921 S.W.2d at 482. Absent the attachment listing documents to be returned, the contempt judgment in this case does n......