In re Scott, Motion No. 13891; No. 7377.
| Decision Date | 01 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 13891; No. 7377. |
| Parties | In re SCOTT. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Cantey, Hanger, McMahon, McKnight & Johnson, of Fort Worth, for relator.
Thompson, Knight, Baker, Harris & Wright, of Dallas, and Robt. Harrison, Marvin B. Simpson, and Harris Brewster, all of Fort Worth, for respondent.
The circumstances antedating the matter involved in this motion are fully detailed in the opinion of this Court in causes Nos. 7377 and 7456 and motion No. 13625, Ex parte Scott, Scott v. Scott, and Scott v. Bond et al., Tex.Sup., 123 S.W.2d 306. We here refer to those opinions.
Mrs. Jessica Scott, wife of Winfield Scott, Jr., filed suit for divorce in the District Court of Dallas County. We hereafter refer to Winfield Scott, Jr., as relator. Pending the divorce suit, the district court entered an order requiring relator to pay alimony to Mrs. Scott. Relator failed to pay such alimony, and the district court entered an order adjudging him in contempt, fined him $100, and committed him to jail for three days, and until he should purge himself of contempt by paying the sum of money past due under such alimony order. Relator was committed to jail under such contempt order. This Court granted relator a writ of habeas corpus, and ordered him released on giving bond in the sum of $5,000. The bond was given, with relator as principal and Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company as surety, and relator released.
On final hearing of the habeas corpus action in this Court, it was held that the original alimony order entered by the district court was valid, but that the contempt order was void. The final judgment of this Court was that relator be enlarged, but without prejudice to the power of the district court to enforce its alimony order by proper proceedings. It was ordered that should the district court again attempt to enforce the alimony order, relator should have the right to make any lawful defense thereto. The effect of our judgment in the habeas corpus proceeding was to adjudge the contempt proceedings against relator void, and to discharge him from all restraint thereunder. The original order discharging relator did not, in so many words,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nowell v. Nowell
...been interpreted to permit temporary support pending the appeal of a judgment of divorce. Ex parte Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 8, 123 S.W.2d 306, 126 S.W.2d 626; Ex parte Lohmuller, 103 Tex. 474, 476, 129 S.W. 834, 835, 29 L.R.A.,N.S., 303; Williams v. Williams, 60 Tex.Civ.App. 179, 125 S.W. 937, 94......
-
Laster v. First Huntsville Properties Co.
...court to be fair and just and to be awarded to the wife for her portion of the homestead. Ex parte Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 123 S.W.2d 306, 126 S.W.2d 626 (1939); Mozisek v. Mozisek, 365 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth 1963), and Mea v. Mea, 464 S.W.2d 201 (Tex.Civ.App., Tyler 1971). * * * H......
-
Ex parte La Rocca
...to criminal procedure. Ex Parte Genecov, 143 Tex. 476, 186 S.W.2d 225, 160 A.L.R. 1099; Ex Parte Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 123 S.W.2d 306, 126 S.W.2d 626. The relators in this case are presumed to be innocent of violating the injunction of June 7, 1954, and the burden was upon respondent, Howard-R......
-
Moreland v. Hawley Independent School Dist., 2268.
...of the question and observe it. It seems to me, however, that in the recent case of Ex parte Scott, 133 Tex. 1, 123 S.W.2d 306, 126 S.W.2d 626, the court refused to apply such a test with the effect practically of leaving us without any guiding Without prolonging the discussion, it is my vi......