Mitchell v. Mitchell
| Decision Date | 12 October 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 6332,6332 |
| Citation | 266 S.W.2d 252 |
| Parties | MITCHELL v. MITCHELL. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Singleton & Trulove, Amarillo, for appellant.
Lee Minner, Vega, for appellee.
In October, 1947, in cause No. 1541, styled Pearl Ruth Mitchell v. Carlos Elmer Mitchell, pending in the 69th District Court of Moore County, Texas, Pearl Ruth Mitchell recovered judgment of and from Carlos Elmer Mitchell for divorce, custody of their child, and $50 per month child support. On March 1, 1953, Pearl Ruth Mitchell Head, being the same person as Pearl Ruth Mitchell mentioned above, caused to be filed her complaint for contempt due to the failure of Carlos Elmer Mitchell to pay the sums for support as provided for in the divorce judgment in Cause No. 1541 above set out. Show cause order was issued and served by depositing the same in the United States mail. The show cause order ordered Carlos Elmer Mitchell to show cause before the 69th District Court of Moore County, Texas, on the 10th day of April, 1953, at 2:30 o'clock p. m. why he should not be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the judgment of that court theretofore entered which ordered him to pay as support for his minor child the sum of $50 per month which failure to pay support was alleged to have occurred for the period of July 1, 1952, to March 1, 1953. Carlos Elmer Mitchell appeared and answered to such show cause order.
Upon such hearing the court found Carlos Elmer Mitchell in arrears in his payments of child support and guilty of contempt of that court and assessed his punishment at a fine of $25 and, in addition thereto, confinement in the Moore County jail for 72 hours and until the fine, the arrears, and all costs were paid. From this judgment holding Carlos Elmer Mitchell guilty of contempt of court he has sought to perfect his appeal to this court.
This is an appeal directly from an order holding appellant in contempt of court and assessing against him a conditional punishment. We are of the opinion that this court does not have jurisdiction to review this contempt proceedings and that this appeal should be dismissed as stated in Tims v. Tims, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 995, where it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starr County v. Laughlin
...v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 63 S.W. 630; Lawley v. State, 117 Tex.Cr.R. 14, 36 S.W.2d 1035, and cases there cited.' Se also Mitchell v. Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W.2d 252; Ex parte Smart, 152 Tex. 229, 256 S.W.2d 398; Ex parte Tyler, 152 Tex. 602, 261 S.W.2d 833; Padfield v. McIntosh, Tex.Ci......
-
Ex parte Henderson, s. 6096
...procedure and judgment can be reviewed is by means of a collateral attack by means of a habeas corpus proceeding. See: Mitchell v. Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W.2d 252; Tims v. Tims, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 995, writ In Cause No. 6097, A. L. Henderson vs. Carolynne M. Henderson, the appe......
-
Blair v. Blair, 16796
...cannot ignore it. We have concluded that the record shows on its face that we do not have jurisdiction of the appeal. Mitchell v. Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 266 S.W.2d 252; Ex parte Henderson, Tex.Civ.App., 300 S.W.2d 189, In the above cases the parties attempting to appeal had been held in co......