Ex Parte Testard

• Decision Date: 10 February 1909
• Citation: 115 S.W. 1155
• Parties: Ex parte TESTARD et al.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 1155

115 S.W. 1155

Ex parte TESTARD et al.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 10, 1909.

Habeas corpus by Seth Testard and another. Relators remanded.

Salliway & McAskill, for relators. C. A. Davies, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, J.

This is an application for the writ of habeas corpus to free the applicants from the custody of the sheriff of Bexar county, by whom they are held under a judgment of one of the district courts of that county convicting them of contempt, consisting of a violation of an injunction. The case is of the same nature as that of Ex parte Testard, 106 S. W. 319, and all of the questions raised were decided in that case, except two, and to these we shall confine our opinion.

The punishment imposed by the present judgment was a fine of $100 and imprisonment for three days. It is urged that this was not authorized by articles 3012 and 3013, Rev. St. 1895, which regulate proceedings for the enforcement of obedience to injunctions. These articles make no provision for the imposition of a fine or for imprisonment for any stated time; but article 3013 provides that the person violating the injunction "shall be committed to jail without bail until he purges himself of such contempt, in such manner and form as may be directed by the court or judge." But article 3011 provides that disobedience of an injunction may be punished as a contempt, and article 1101 authorizes, in the broadest language, the punishment of contempt by fine not to exceed $100 and by imprisonment not exceeding three days. This expressly authorizes all that was done in this case. But, beyond that, the district court is clothed with full authority to enforce obedience to its writ of injunction, and it is the purpose of article 3013 to provide a method by which obedience may be exacted. This in no wise conflicts with the provision in article 1101 for the punishment of acts already committed, but goes further, and authorizes the imprisonment until the contempt has been purged. The judgment in this case was not the full exercise of the power of the court, which extends to the enforcement of full obedience to its writ; but it was nevertheless within the powers defined. That the court might have gone further, and taken such measures as to secure obedience to its orders, does not affect the validity of the judgment rendered.

The other point is that the applicant, Strittmatter, was not a party to the injunction. A sufficient answer is that he was not charged with the...