Ex parte Slavin, No. A--11821

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtPOPE
Citation412 S.W.2d 43
PartiesEx parte Eugene L. SLAVIN, Relator.
Docket NumberNo. A--11821
Decision Date01 March 1967

Page 43

412 S.W.2d 43
Ex parte Eugene L. SLAVIN, Relator.
No. A--11821.
Supreme Court of Texas.
March 1, 1967.

William J. Salyer, San Antonio, for relator.

Robert Valdez, San Antonio, for respondent.

ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

POPE, Justice.

Relator, Eugene L. Slavin, brought this original habeas corpus proceeding after the district judge held him in contempt and committed him to jail for three days and until he purged himself of contempt by paying $212.00 which the court found was the amount he had not paid under a child-support order. The question presented for decision is whether the terms of the child-

Page 44

support order are definite and certain enough to be enforced by contempt. Our opinion is that the order is ambiguous, and, therefore, the relator should be discharged.

Relator and his wife Gloria Slavin were divorced on February 8, 1963. The divorce decree awarded custody of the three minor children to Gloria. They were at that time aged four, nine and fourteen. The portion of the decree which ordered relator to pay support and which is in question is:

'The Defendant is further ORDERED to pay the sum of ONE HUNDRED FIFTY AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($150.00) per month for the care, support and maintenance of the three minor children until said children attain the age of eighteen years, that the Defendant, EUGENE L. SLAVIN, shall pay the sum of THIRTY-SEVEN AND 50/100 DOLLARS ($37.50) each week for the care, support and maintenance of his minor children beginning with the 7th day of February, 1963, and shall pay a like sum on the Thursday of each succeeding week thereafter, * * *.'

The decree was sufficiently certain as long as all three of the children were less than eighteen years of age. Relator urges, however, that the order became reasonably subject to either one of two constructions after one of the children reached eighteen. Relator paid the monthly support of $150.00 until one year after the oldest of the three children reached eighteen. He then reduced the support payments proportionately and began paying $100.00 for the two children who were still less than eighteen. He urges that art. 4639a, § 1, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St., only authorizes a court to order a parent to make payments for the benefit 'of such child or children, until same have reached the age of eighteen (18) years * * *.' Relator says that by his payment of $150.00 monthly for a year after the oldest child reached eighteen, he actually paid $318.00 more than he was required by law to pay. He says this construction of the support order is a reasonable one and is consistent with innocence.

The order is subject to another construction, one that would support the order of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
194 practice notes
  • Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance, No. 75-4312
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 18, 1978
    ...or conclusions about which persons might well differ and without leaving anything for further hearing. See also Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 For example, in Moore v. State, 470 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1971, writ ref. n. r. e.), the trial court had granted a temporary injuncti......
  • Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamil. Cty Hosp., No. E2006-00064-SC-R11-CV.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 13, 2008
    ...404 (2007) (clear and unequivocal); King v. King, 249 A.D.2d 395, 671 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122 (1998) (clear and explicit); Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex.1967) (clear, specific, and unambiguous); Greene v. Finn, 153 P.3d 945, 951 (Wyo.2007) (clear, specific, and 19. Tennessee's courts ha......
  • Ex parte Johnson, No. C-1635
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 6, 1983
    ...547-48 (sixth amendment right to jury trial for "serious" contempts; fifth amendment right against self-incrimination); Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex.1967) (where violation of court order alleged, order must have been written, clear, and unambiguous); Ex parte Ratliff, 117 Tex. 32......
  • Ex parte Barnett, No. B-9137
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • May 14, 1980
    ...without due process of law. See Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1979); Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.1976); Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Ratliff, 117 Tex. 325, 3 S.W.2d 406 The threshold question is raised by relator's contention that the district court i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
194 cases
  • Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance, No. 75-4312
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 18, 1978
    ...or conclusions about which persons might well differ and without leaving anything for further hearing. See also Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 For example, in Moore v. State, 470 S.W.2d 391 (Tex.Civ.App. San Antonio 1971, writ ref. n. r. e.), the trial court had granted a temporary injuncti......
  • Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamil. Cty Hosp., No. E2006-00064-SC-R11-CV.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • February 13, 2008
    ...404 (2007) (clear and unequivocal); King v. King, 249 A.D.2d 395, 671 N.Y.S.2d 121, 122 (1998) (clear and explicit); Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex.1967) (clear, specific, and unambiguous); Greene v. Finn, 153 P.3d 945, 951 (Wyo.2007) (clear, specific, and 19. Tennessee's courts ha......
  • Ex parte Johnson, No. C-1635
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • July 6, 1983
    ...547-48 (sixth amendment right to jury trial for "serious" contempts; fifth amendment right against self-incrimination); Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex.1967) (where violation of court order alleged, order must have been written, clear, and unambiguous); Ex parte Ratliff, 117 Tex. 32......
  • Ex parte Barnett, No. B-9137
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • May 14, 1980
    ...without due process of law. See Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686 (Tex.1979); Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542 (Tex.1976); Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex.1967); Ex parte Ratliff, 117 Tex. 325, 3 S.W.2d 406 The threshold question is raised by relator's contention that the district court i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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