STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL., EDGAR B. DAVIS, PETITIONER,
v.
DAN HARDIE, AS SHERIFF OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Edgar Davis petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for habeas corpus relief after being committed to jail for contempt of court for failing to pay alimony. The Court held that Davis's remedy was to seek review by writ of error of the Circuit Court's judgment that had already upheld his contempt commitment, not to seek another habeas corpus writ, absent new facts or changed circumstances.
The Supreme Court should not issue another writ of habeas corpus where the Circuit Court has already reviewed and upheld the contempt commitment in a prior habeas corpus proceeding, as that judgment becomes res adjudicata. The proper remedy is to seek review by writ of error of the Circuit Court's judgment, not another habeas corpus petition, unless new facts or changed circumstances have arisen since the prior judgment.
“The judgment of the Circuit Court remanding the prisoner to custody under the contempt commitment is res adjudicata of the lawfulness of the imprisonment under the contempt commitment.”
Establishes that the prior Circuit Court habeas corpus judgment is conclusive regarding the lawfulness of the contempt commitment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was committed to jail for contempt of court because he failed to pay alimony as decreed. He previously sought habeas corpus relief before the Ci…
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 Alimony Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Edgar'Bennfett Davis, applied to the Chief Justice for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The petition on its face showed that Davis had been com*134mitted to jail for contempt of court in that he failed to pay alimony as decreed against him. The petition further showed that after the commitment for contempt was ordered, the petitioner sued out a writ of habeas corpus before the Circuit Judge to- review the propriety of the commitment and to obtain his release therefrom; that at a hearing on such writ of habeas corups petitioner was remanded to jail- under the commitment for contempt.
The effect of allowing the prayer of the present petition would be to order the release of Davis from the contempt commitment that was reviewed and held valid on the habeas corpus proceedings had in the Circuit Court.
The judgment of the Circuit Court remanding the prisoner to custody under the contempt commitment is res adjudicata of the lawfulness of the imprisonment under the contempt commitment. A judgment of the Circuit Court in a habeas corpus proceeding can only be reviewed by writ of error. Tylor v. Painter, 16 Fla. 144. A writ of habeas corpus should not be issued by the Supreme Court, or by a Justice thereof, except upon a showing of reasonable grounds to apprehend that the imprisonment - complained of in .the application for the writ, is , without authority of law. Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 Sou. Rep. 632.
While habeas corpus máy issue on a very informal application (Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125, 77 Sou. Rep. 666, LRA 1918E 949 Ex Parte Pells 28 Fla. 67, 9 Sou. Rep. 831) the writ itself should not be allowed where the petition for habeas corpus shows on its face facts conclusively rebutting the petitioner’s' assertion that his imprisonment is unlawful. Hanley v. State, 50 Fla. 82; 39 Sou. Rep. 149.
In this case the remedy of the petitioner is to seek the review, by writ'of'-terror; of the judgment- of'the" Circuit *135Court which remanded him to custody under the-contempt, commitment, because the judgment of the Circuit Court on the habeas corpus proceeding already had in the Circuit Court is res adjudicate of the lawfulness of the prisoner’s custody under the contempt commitment, so long as that-judgment stands unreversed or not set aside. For this reason the issuance of another writ of habeas corpus must be denied, in the absence of some showing of some new fact or change in condition occurring since the Circuit Court judgment in habeas corpus, that would make the imprisonment complained of now unlawful, notwithstanding it was lawful when the Circuit Court remanded the prisoner.
The writ of habeas corpus should be denied without prejudice to the right to submit an amended petition if facts exist which bring the case within his opinion.
Writ of habeas corpus denied without prejudice.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Taylor v. Chapman, 127 Fla. 401 (Fla. 1937)…ffect to Sections 5441-5443, C. G. L., which make both a judgment remanding, as well as one discharging, a prisoner conclusive until reversed in the manner provided by the statute. D’Allessandro v. Tippins, 102 Fla. 10, 137 So. 231; State v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 So. 97; State v. Prescott, 110 Fla. 37, 148 So. 533; State v. Drumbright, 116 Fla. 586, 156 So. 721. But that question is not properly presented for our consideration here. The information here under attack reads as follows: “Robert R. Taylor…
-
Skipper v. Doyle Schumacker, 118 Fla. 867 (Fla. 1933)…use of the writ. Ex parte Amos, 93 Fla. 5, 112 Sou. Rep. 289; Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94, 48 Sou. Rep. 632; Haile v. Gardner, 82 Fla. 355, 91 Sou. [*872] Rep. 376; Frederick v. Rowe, 105. Fla. 193, 140 Sou. Rep. 915; State, ex rel. Davis v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 146 Sou. Rep. 97. In the present case the writ of habeas corpus was applied for by a petition which showed on- its face that the applicant for the writ had been duly indicted, 'tried, adjudged guilty and sentenced to State Prison in the Circuit Co…
-
Sullivan v. State Ex Rel. McCrory, 49 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 1951)…it is well settled that the writ should not be allowed where the petition does not make a prima facie showing that the applicant is entitled to be discharged from custody. See ex parte Aulday, 113 Fla. 70, 151 So. 388; State ex rel. Davis v. Hardie, 108 Fla. 133, 437, 146 So. 97; Ex parte Tail, 145 Neb. 268, 16 N.W. 2d 161, and cases there cited; Conley v. Cox, 8 Cir., 138 F. 2d 786; Helms v. Humphrey, D.C., 63 F. Supp. 4; 25 Am. Jur., Habeas Corpus, Sec. 131, p. 238. The allegations of the petition fail in…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ex parte Corpus, 28 Fla. 67 (Fla. 1891)
- Pounds v. Darling, 75 Fla. 125 (Fla. 1918)
- Lee v. Van Pelt, 57 Fla. 94 (Fla. 1909)
- Hanley v. State, 50 Fla. 82 (Fla. 1905)
- Tyler v. Painter, 16 Fla. 144 (Fla. 1877)