W. C. MCCALL, APPELLANT
v.
JAMES LEE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court dismissed an appeal from a contempt order, holding that such orders are not directly appealable. The proper remedy for an allegedly illegal imprisonment due to contempt is habeas corpus.
No, an appeal does not lie directly from an order punishing a party for contempt for the violation of an injunction granted in a chancery cause. The proper remedy, if any, is habeas corpus.
“We are of the opinion that this contention is well grounded.”
Establishes the court's agreement with the appellee's argument that the appeal is improper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Lee sought and obtained a temporary injunction against W. C. McCall, a justice of the peace, to prevent him from enforcing certain judgments. Mc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appealability Of Contempt Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Shackleford, C. J.
James Lee filed hi® 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 22nd 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 aljudged 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, Florida, this tenth 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 South. Rep. 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 upon those not appealed from can not be considered, but upon appeal from a final decree errors may be assigned upon interlocutory decrees, though not embraced in the entry of appeal.” Also see Mann v. Jennings, 25 Fla. 730, 6 South. Rep. 771; Lenfesty v. Coe, 26 Fla. 49, 7 South. Rep. 2; Wiggins & Johnson v. Williams, 36 Fla. 637, 18 South. Rep. 859, 80 L.
R. A. 754; Hale v. Yeager, 57 Fla. 442, 49 South. Rep. 544; City of Miami v. Miami Realty, Loan & Guaranty Co., 57 Fla. 366, 49 South. Rep. 55; Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496, 50 South. Rep. 867, 26 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 577. Turning our attention to the order from which the appeal was entered, we are met with the contention by the appellee that an appeal does not lie from an order punishing a party for contempt for the violation of an injunction granted in a chancery cause. We are of the opinion that this contention is well grounded. It would seem to be fully supported by Florida Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Williams, 45 Fla. 295, 33 South. Rep. 991, wherein prior decisions of this court are cited and discussed. See also the authorities cited along this line by Mr. Chief Justice Whitfield, in his dissenting-opinion in Ex Parte Beville, 58 Fla. 170, text 185, 50 South. Rep. 865, text 869, 27 L.
R. A. (N. S.) 273, 19 Ann. Cas.
48. This 'would seem to be decisive of this appeal. We would add that we have examined the case of Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, but see no occasion to change the conclusion announced above. The remedy, if any, is habeas corpus for an illegal imprisonment.
For the reasons stated the appeal mast be dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
Taylor, Cockrell, Hooker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City of Palmetto v. Lucretia A. Katsch and W. A. Katsch, 86 Fla. 506 (Fla. 1923)…while an appeal from an interlocutory order brings up nothing but the specified order, yet an appeal from a final decree brings up all interlocutory orders for consideration. Burr v. Powell, 63 Fla. 379, 58 South. Rep. 29; McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14, 62 South. Rep. 902. Appellant assigns several grounds of error, but they may all be resolved into two primary questions to be answered by this court, viz: (1) At or prior to the time the assessments in question were laid, had the City of Palmetto acquired title to th…
-
Holger Miller v. Miller, 91 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1926)…empts for violating an order of injunction. In such cases appeal does not lie from a commitment or fine for violating, or for refusal to comply with, an order of the Court made in due course and within the jurisdiction of the Court, McCall vs. Lee, 66 Florida 14, 62 So. 902 and ¿uthorities there cited. It is therefore ordered that the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed at the cost of the Appellant. Whitfield, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur. Brown, C. J., and Ellis and Strum, J. J., concur in the…
-
Ex Parte: Marcus R. Bostwick, 102 Fla. 995 (Fla. 1931)…a [*998] remedy where the punishment is imprisonment, to a very large extent efficacious and speedy but not always adequate to the purpose. That remedy is by means of the writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 So. 652; McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14, 62 So. 902; Ex parte Earman, 85 Fla. 297, 95 So. 755; 31 A. L. R. 1226. When a court has adjudged an imprisonment for contempt of court, a superior court may in appropriate habeas corpus proceedings test the validity of the imprisonment by determi…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1911)
- Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 (Fla. 1909)
- Wiggins & Johnson v. Williams, 36 Fla. 637 (Fla. 1895)
- Camp Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 48 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1904)
- Morrison v. Smolarick (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
- Mann v. Jennings, 25 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1889)
- The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co. v. Williams, 45 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1903)
- Lenfesty v. Burton E. Coe, 26 Fla. 49 (Fla. 1890)
- City of Miami v. Miami Realty, 57 Fla. 366 (Fla. 1909)
- Hale v. Yeager, 57 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1909)