McCausland, Application of
| Decision Date | 14 February 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3102 |
| Citation | 279 P.2d 820,130 Cal.App.2d 708 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Application of A. A. McCAUSLAND for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. |
Ferrari & Ferrari, San Francisco, for petitioner.
Raymond D. Williamson, San Francisco, for Dan Gallagher, Sheriff of City and County of San Francisco.
The sheriff's return shows that petitioner was committed to custody by virtue of an order of the superior court which adjudged him guilty of 'wilfully violating' a judgment of that court which directed him to pay $4,800 to a referee and receiver theretofore appointed by the court, and ordered that he be 'forthwith arrested and committed to the county jail there to be confined and remain until he obeys the order of this Court.'
The order of commitment contains no finding that petitioner has or at any time had the ability to pay. There is nothing in the record before us indicating that any inquiry was at any time had or showing made concerning petitioner's ability to comply with the judgment. In addition, petitioner has filed in the instant proceeding his affidavit that neither at the time the judgment was rendered nor at any time since has he had the sum of $4,800.
This case is upon all fours with In re Cowden, 139 Cal. 244, 73 P. 156. In holding invalid the order of commitment there involved, the Supreme Court said: 139 Cal. at pages 245-246, 73 P. at page 156. See also Ex parte Silvia, 123 Cal. 293, 55 P. 988; Van Hoosear v. Railroad Commission, 189 Cal. 228, 233, 207 P. 903; Bakeman v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 37 Cal.App. 785, 788, 174 P. 911; Merritt v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 93 Cal.App. 177-181, 269 P. 547; In re Mackay, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chula v. Superior Court In and For Orange County
...P. 395; In re Carpenter, 36 Cal.App.2d 274, 276(1), 97 P.2d 476; In re Wilson, 123 Cal.App. 601, 603(2), 11 P.2d 652.) In re McCausland, 130 Cal.App.2d 708, 279 P.2d 820, relied on by petitioner, is factually distinguishable from the present case. In such case the order was annulled because......
-
McKinney, In re
...it properly be said that the power to imprison a contemnor until he performs the ordered act (Code Civ.Proc. § 1219; In re McCausland, 130 Cal.App.2d 708, 709, 279 P.2d 820) or for the Duration of a judicial proceeding (Ex Parte Rowe, supra, 7 Cal. at p. 177) is inadequate. When to these po......
-
Lyon v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County
...act to be performed, it must also include a finding that such act is within the power of the contemner to perform. In re McCausland, 130 Cal.App.2d 708, 709, 279 P.2d 820; In re Michelena, 150 Cal.App.2d 377, 378, 309 P.2d 861; In re Leavitt, 174 Cal.App.2d 535, 538, 345 P.2d 75; Bailey v. ......
-
Martin v. Superior Court In and For San Diego County
...v. Superior Court, 94 Cal.App.2d 902, 905, 211 P.2d 942; In re Lande, 96 Cal.App.2d 926, 930, 216 P.2d 909; In re McCausland, 130 Cal.App.2d 708, 709[1, 2], 279 P.2d 820; In re Michelena, 150 Cal.App.2d 377, 378[1, 2], 309 P.2d The order of December 1, 1961 was fatally defective. AMENDMENT ......