State v. Thurmond

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtOGDEN
PartiesTHE STATE v. D. THURMOND.
Decision Date01 January 1872

37 Tex. 340

THE STATE
v.
D. THURMOND.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1872.


1. In proceedings for contempt, the court whose authority or mandate has been contemned is the sole judge of the extent and culpability of the contempt, as well as the exclusive judge of the answer to purge that contempt.

2. The Supreme Court, as an appellate tribunal, has no revisory power over the judgments of the District Courts in cases of contempt.

APPEAL from Panola. Tried below before the Hon. M. W. Wheeler.

The facts of the case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.


Wm. Alexander, Attorney-General, for the State.

No brief for the appellee has reached the hands of the reporter.

[37 Tex. 341]


OGDEN, J.

A judgment nisi was entered in this case against a defaulting witness for a contempt of court in disobeying a subpœna; scire facias issued, and at the next term the witness came in and filed an answer, showing cause why the judgment nisi should not be made final, and praying that the same be set aside, and he be dismissed with his costs.

This was a proceeding against the party for a contempt, and that court whose authority and mandate had been contemned was, and is, under the statute, the sole judge of the extent and culpability of that contempt. If the party has in his answer fully purged the contempt, he is entitled to have the fine remitted and be discharged. But, as the court is the exclusive judge of the contempt, so it is also the exclusive judge of the answer to purge that contempt. Article 2925, Paschal's Digest, provides, “It shall be in the discretion of the court to judge of the sufficiency of an excuse rendered by the witness.” And if the court has exercised that discretion, and decided upon the merits of the answer, that is an end of the controversy.

In the case at bar, the court, in the exercise of its legal discretion, adjudged the answer sufficient to purge the witness of all contempt, and the judgment nisi was set aside and the case dismissed. In other words, upon a sufficient showing that the party intended no disrespect for the dignity or authority of the court, the presiding judge, in his discretion, saw fit to forgive the apparent contempt, and to dismiss the party without punishment; and now, if we had full authority, we should hesitate exceedingly before pronouncing that ruling of the court erroneous. But this, as an appellate court, has no revisory power over the judgments of the District Courts in cases of contempt. (Crow v. The State, 24...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Martin, Case Number: 18080
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 21, 1927
    ...Ct., 16 Porto Rico, 89, Graham v. Williamson, 128 Tenn. 720, 164 S.W. 781; Sanders v. Metcalf, 1 Tenn. Ch. 419; State v. Thurmond, 37 Tex. 340; Alfred v. Alfred, 87 Vt. 542, 90 A. 580; Crosby's Case, 3 Wills, C. P. 188, 95 Reprint, 1005; In re Clarke, 7 U. C. Q. B. 223.)" ¶55 The sole adjud......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...Fischer, 102 U.S. 121; Tyler v. Hamersley, 44 Conn. 392; Easton v. State, 39 Ala. 551; State v. Wood, 42 Am. Dec., 161; State v. Thermond, 37 Tex. 340; Phillips v. Welch, 12 Nev. 158.) The only exception is where the lower court is entirely without jurisdiction. Such rule is in force in Wyo......
  • Collins v. Kegans, No. 71166
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 30, 1991
    ...Arapis, 157 Tex. 627, 306 S.W.2d 884, 887 (1957); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 295 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1956); The State v. Thurmond, 37 Tex. 340, 341 (1872); Tims v. Tims, 204 S.W.2d 995 (Tex.App.--Amarillo, 1947, writ ref'd); Dallas County by Commissioners Court v. Mays, 747 S.W.2d 842, ......
  • Ex Parte Degener
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 19, 1891
    ...announced by the supreme court of our own state in Jordan v. State, 14 Tex. 441; Casey v. State, 25 Tex. 387; and State v. Thurmond, 37 Tex. 340. Upon the second proposition above stated as to jurisdiction, to-wit, "the power to render the particular judgment which was rendered," there has ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • State ex rel. Attorney Gen. v. Martin, Case Number: 18080
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 21, 1927
    ...Ct., 16 Porto Rico, 89, Graham v. Williamson, 128 Tenn. 720, 164 S.W. 781; Sanders v. Metcalf, 1 Tenn. Ch. 419; State v. Thurmond, 37 Tex. 340; Alfred v. Alfred, 87 Vt. 542, 90 A. 580; Crosby's Case, 3 Wills, C. P. 188, 95 Reprint, 1005; In re Clarke, 7 U. C. Q. B. 223.)" ¶55 The sole adjud......
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...Fischer, 102 U.S. 121; Tyler v. Hamersley, 44 Conn. 392; Easton v. State, 39 Ala. 551; State v. Wood, 42 Am. Dec., 161; State v. Thermond, 37 Tex. 340; Phillips v. Welch, 12 Nev. 158.) The only exception is where the lower court is entirely without jurisdiction. Such rule is in force in Wyo......
  • Collins v. Kegans, No. 71166
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • January 30, 1991
    ...Arapis, 157 Tex. 627, 306 S.W.2d 884, 887 (1957); Wagner v. Warnasch, 156 Tex. 334, 295 S.W.2d 890, 893 (1956); The State v. Thurmond, 37 Tex. 340, 341 (1872); Tims v. Tims, 204 S.W.2d 995 (Tex.App.--Amarillo, 1947, writ ref'd); Dallas County by Commissioners Court v. Mays, 747 S.W.2d 842, ......
  • Ex Parte Degener
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • December 19, 1891
    ...announced by the supreme court of our own state in Jordan v. State, 14 Tex. 441; Casey v. State, 25 Tex. 387; and State v. Thurmond, 37 Tex. 340. Upon the second proposition above stated as to jurisdiction, to-wit, "the power to render the particular judgment which was rendered," there has ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT