Mccall v. Lee

• Decision Date: 17 June 1913
• Citation: 66 Fla. 14,62 So. 902
• Parties: McCALL v. LEE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

62 So. 902

66 Fla. 14

McCALL v. LEE.

Florida Supreme Court

June 17, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; L. W. Bethel, Judge.

Bill by James Lee against W. C. McCall. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Dismissed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Where several interlocutory orders or decrees are made in a cause and only certain ones specified are appealed from assignments of error based upon those not appealed from cannot be considered, but upon appeal from a final decree errors may be assigned upon interlocutory decrees, though not embraced in the entry of appeal.

An appeal does not lie from an order punishing a party for contempt for the violation of an injunction granted in a chancery case. The remedy, if any, is habeas corpus for an illegal imprisonment.

COUNSEL Geo. A. Worley & Son, of Miami, for appellant.

Hudson & Boggs, of Miami, for appellee.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD C.J.

James Lee filed his bill in chancery against W. C. McCall, wherein a temporary injunction was sought to restrain the defendant who is alleged to be a justice of the peace in and for the Tenth district of Dade county, 'from making any entries touching' certain named causes, and 'from issuing executions or taking any steps whatever to enforce' certain described judgments against the complainant, which are alleged to be void for reasons stated, and that at the final hearing such temporary injunction be made perpetual. There was also a prayer for general relief. A temporary injunction was granted by a court commissioner, in accordance with the prayer of the bill, on the 22d day of October, 1912. Various and sundry proceedings were had which it is unnecessary to recite or mention. On the 29th day of January, 1913, the complainant filed a motion for a rule against the defendant, requiring him to show cause why he should not be held to be in contempt of court for a violation of such restraining order in the particulars alleged in such motion. The defendant filed a demurrer to the motion and also an answer, wherein he averred that such restraining order was invalid for the reasons which he sets forth. The cause came on to be heard, and the trial court made the following order:

'The foregoing cause coming on for consideration upon the rule to show cause why the defendant, W. C. McCall, should not be held in contempt for violation of the injunction heretofore issued in the cause, and the said McCall having answered in open court, and having failed to purge himself of contempt as above stated, and the court being advised in the premises:

'It is therefore decreed, ordered, and adjudged that the said W. C. McCall is in contempt, and that he pay into the custody of the court all the moneys collected from M. S. Studstill, garnishee, within three days from this date, and in default thereof that he stand committed to the county jail of Dade county until he shall purge himself of such contempt.

'And that complainant shall have leave to further submit to the court any question which may arise as to whether any sum so paid into the registry of court is correct, in order that full justice may be done.

'Done and ordered in open court at Miami, Fla., this 10th day of February, A. D. 1913.'

From this order the defendant has entered his appeal. Several errors are assigned, but we can consider only those which relate to and are founded upon this order, since no appeal was entered from any of the other orders. As we held in Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226, 37 So. 722, 111 Am. St. Rep. 77: 'Where several interlocutory orders or decrees are made in a cause, and only certain ones specified are appealed from, assignments of error based...