HOLGER MILLER, APPELLANT
v.
MAE MILLER, 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 Florida Supreme Court dismissed an appeal from a contempt of court order holding Holger Miller in contempt for failure to pay child support. The court held that no appeal lies from a commitment for violating a court order made within the court's jurisdiction.
No appeal lies from a commitment or fine for violating or refusing to comply with an order of the court made in due course and within the jurisdiction of the court. The same rules that apply to contempts for violating orders of injunction apply to this case.
“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”
Establishes the central holding that appeals do not lie from contempt commitments for violation of valid court orders within the court's jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolger Miller was ordered by the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County to pay $205.00 in delinquent child support for the minor child Mary Augusta Mill…
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 Violation Of Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Buford, J.
— This cause is before the court on appeal from the Judge of the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, adjudging the appellant to be in contempt, of court.
The order from which appeal is taken is as follows, to-wit: “This cause coming on this day to be heard upon the petition of the complainant for a ruling nisi, and the parties being properly before the Court, and the Court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, it is thereupon:
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Holger Miller, the respondent in the above styled cause, be, and he is hereby adjudged in contempt of this Court for his failure to pay the sum of $205.00, the amount shown to be delinquent at the date of the filing of the complainant’s petition, to-wit: August 7th, 1924, for the support of Mary Augusta Miller, the minor child of the parties hereto, as required of him by the final decree hereinbefore entered, and until the payment of such sum it is further ordered that the respondent, Holger Miller, remain in contempt of this Court and be confined in'the County Jail of Hillsborough County, Florida, until the same is paid or until further order of the Court. ’ ’ <
The record shows that the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County had jurisdiction of the cause in which the order complained of was made and also had, at the time, jurisdiction of the parties.
The same laws and rules of practice and procedure will apply to this case which apply to contempts 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 Opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 481 (Fla. 1930)…rdinarily an appeal does not lie from an order of a court of general jurisdiction imposing punishment for contempt of court. Caro v. Maxwell, 20 Fla. 717; Fla. Cent. P. R. Co. v. Williams, 33 So. R. 391, 45 Fla. 295; Miller v. Miller 107 So. R. 251, 91 Fla. 82. As at common law every court of record was the exclusive judge of contempt committed against its authority and dignity, the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction inflicting punishment on the contemner was not, as a general rule, reviewable.…
-
Orr v. Morrison B. Orr, 141 Fla. 112 (Fla. 1939)…earlier stages of the cause, is both usual and the better practice.” This Court has further held that failure to pay alimony allowed by an order of court places the person so failing to comply with the order in contempt of court (Miller v. Miller, 91 Fla. 82, 107 South. Rep. 251, and, in 'dismissing the appeal in this case, the court said: “The same laws and rules of practice and procedure will apply to this case which apply to contempts for violating an order of injunction.” It inevitably follows, the…
-
Neering v. State, 141 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)…. “Ordinarily an appeal does not lie from an order of a court of general jurisdiction imposing punishment for contempt of court. Caro v. Maxwell, 20 Fla. 17; Fla. Cent. & P. R. Co. v. Williams, 45 Fla. 295, 33 So. 991; Miller v. Miller, 91 Fla. 82, 107 So. 251. As at common law every court of record was the exclusive judge of contempt committed against its authority and dignity, the judgment of a [*617] court of competent jurisdiction inflicting punishment on the contemner was not, as a general rule, revi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCall v. Lee, 66 Fla. 14 (Fla. 1913)