Ex Parte Smith
| Citation | 215 S.W. 299 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1919 |
| Docket Number | (No. 5593.) |
| Parties | Ex parte SMITH. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
Appeal from District Court, Jefferson County; E. A. McDowell, Judge.
Application by Mary Smith for writ of habeas corpus. From an order denying the writ, she appeals. Appeal dismissed.
E. A. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Relator was taken into custody for violation of an injunction issued out of the Fifty-Eighth district court of Jefferson county. Application was made to the district judge of the Sixtieth district for a writ of habeas corpus. This was refused by the judge of the Sixtieth district court because it was a contempt proceeding pending in the Fifty-Eighth district court before the judge of that court, and other reasons assigned by the judge refusing the writ. The writ was refused, and from that refusal to grant the writ an appeal was sought to be brought before the court of Criminal Appeals.
An appeal cannot be prosecuted from a refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus. An unbroken line of decisions holds that no appeal can be taken from a refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Copley, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 253, 153 S. W. 325; McFarland v. Johnson, 27 Tex. 105; Ex parte Ainsworth, 27 Tex. 731; Dirks v. State, 33 Tex. 227; Thomas v. State, 40 Tex. 6; Ex parte Barnett, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 136, 167 S. W. 845; Ex parte Muse, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 476, 168 S. W. 520. A refusal to grant a writ of habeas corpus is not a final judgment, and will not support an appeal. Ex parte Ainsworth, 27 Tex. 731; Ex parte Coopwood, 44 Tex. 467; Yarbrough v. State, 2 Tex. 519; Ex parte Strong, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 309, 30 S. W. 666. For collation of other authorities bearing on this question, see Vernon's Ann. Crim. Procedure, p. 909, subd. 2. This contempt is in the nature of a civil proceeding, it being for a violation of an injunction in a civil matter. It would therefore be in the nature of a civil rather than a criminal contempt, and the civil court should have jurisdiction of it.
The appeal is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Moorehouse
...supra. Further, it is well settled that there is no appeal from a refusal to issue or grant a writ of habeas corpus, Ex parte Smith, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 649, 215 S.W. 299 (1919); Nichlos v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 367, 255 S.W.2d 522 (1952), even after a hearing. Ex parte Hughes, 20 S.W.2d 1070 (Tex.......
-
Deeb v. Gandy
...... which will be treated as an application to this court for an. original writ. See Ex parte Jeffcoat (Fla.) 146 So. 827,. opinion filed March 23, 1933. . . The. question for us first to determine here is whether or not the. ...513; Ex parte Garvin, 18. Okl. Cr. 17, 192 P. 363; Ex parte Argenta, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 41,. 224 S.W. 891; Ex parte Smith, 85 Tex. Cr. R. 649, 215 S.W. 299; Ex parte Webster, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 644, 192 S.W. 1063; Ex. parte Parker, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 114, 188 S.W. 983; Sapp v. ......
-
Ex parte Noe
...Ex parte Moorehouse, 614 S.W.2d 450 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Ex parte Hughes, 20 S.W.2d 1070 (Tex.Cr.App.1929); Ex parte Smith, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 649, 215 S.W. 299 (Tex.Cr.App.1919); Ex parte Blankenship, 57 S.W. 646, 647 (Tex.Cr.App.1900). Article 44.34, V.A.C.C.P., note 5. The appellate courts do no......
-
Weiner v. Dial, 69090
...Ex parte Nichlos, 245 S.W.2d 704 (Tex.Cr.App.1952). See also Ex parte Hughes, 20 S.W.2d 1070 (Tex.Cr.App.1929) ; Ex parte Smith, 85 Tex.Cr.R. 649, 215 S.W. 299 (Tex.Cr.App.1919); Ex parte Blankenship, 57 S.W. 646 (Tex.Cr.App.1900); Article 44.34, V.A.C.C.P., Note 5. The appellate courts do ......