ART LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
BEN LEWIS, 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.
Art Lewis appealed a contempt conviction and incarceration order from the Circuit Court of Dade County. The Florida Supreme Court had previously granted habeas corpus relief and discharged Lewis in a related proceeding, leading this Court to dismiss the current appeal as moot and without good purpose.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. Because the Court previously held the orders of committal to be illegal on habeas corpus and ordered petitioner discharged, the imposition of penalties (costs and attorney's fees) would follow the same course, making continued prosecution of the appeal without good purpose.
“If the contemnor be imprisoned, review by habeas corpus may be secured, the sole inquiry being the legality of the imprisonment, but in such case the remedy will not be employed as substitute for an appeal.”
Establishes the proper scope and limits of habeas corpus review versus appellate review in contempt cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArt Lewis was adjudged guilty of civil and criminal contempt by the Circuit Court of Dade County. He was committed to jail and ordered to pay costs an…
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
TERRELL, Justice.
This case has shuttled back and forth to this Court so often that it begins to look as if it were a travesty on our system of administering justice. Two appeals from orders in contempt have been generated. The Circuit Court of Dade County adjudicated Art Lewis guilty of civil and criminal contempt, committed him to jail and ordered him to pay as a penalty all costs and certain attorney’s fees. From said judgment he appealed to this Court and petitioned for habeas corpus. The writ was granted and the petitioner was discharged. Lewis v. Kelly, Fla., 75 So. 2d 761.
On authority of the last cited case, Lewis now moves to “reverse order appealed from upon authority of Art Lewis, Petitioner, v. Kelly, Respondent.” Said motion charges that under Lewis v. Kelly, supra, the commitment imposed was illegal and void. Prior to the Court’s decision in Lewis v. Kelly, filed September 24, 1954, appellee moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the contempt .order could be. adjudicated only by habeas corpus. In view of the situation presented by the motion to dismiss, the disposition of the habeas corpus proceedings and the accounting ordered by the trial court but not disturbed in Lewis v. Lewis, Fla., 73 So. 2d 72, we have reached the conclusion that no good purpose can be served by persevering in this appeal. See also Lewis v. Lewis, Fla. 66 So. 2d 260, Lewis v. Lewis, supra, and. Lewis v. Kelly, supra, when other phases of the case were brought in focus.
Appeals under Section 924.11, F.S., F.S.A., are proper where the contemnor was ordered to pay a fine, Pennekamp v. Circuit Court of Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, 155 Fla. 589, 21 So. 2d 41. Whether the contempt is civil or criminal is not material. Certiorari will not answer the purpose if there is any other adequate remedy, Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. 2d 541. See also Petition of Campbell, Fla., 72 So. 2d 59. If the contemnor be imprisoned, review by habeas corpus may be secured, the sole inquiry being the legality of the imprisonment, but in such case the remedy will not be employed as substitute for an appeal. Sneed v. Mayo, Fla., 66 So. 2d 865; Cooper v. Sinclair, Fla., 66 So. 2d 702; State ex rel. McClure v. Sullivan, Fla., 43 So. 2d 438; Henderson v. Coleman, 150 Fla. 185, 7 So. 2d 117; Dangel on Contempt, Section 681. We express no opinion as to whether or not a contempt order imposing a penalty may be appealable under Section 59.03, F.S., F.S.A. In this case the civil and criminal contempt orders were based on the same act or series of acts. The contemnor was ordered to pay certain costs and fees as a penalty and committed to jail. This Court on habeas corpus held the orders of committal to be illegal and ordered petitioner discharged. In this state of the record it follows that the imposition of the penalty of costs and attorney’s fees would take the same course. Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 492, 501, 55 L.Ed. 797; Dangel on Contempt, Section 703, Note 84.
There has been no ruling by the Circuit Court as to whether or not the transfer to Frank Miller by Art Lewis of his certificates of stock in the 100-21st Street Realty Corporation as security for future advances, was fraudulent, subject to being set aside in equity. It is also not clear whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction of Frank Miller, so neither matter recited in this paragraph can be said to be involved in this appeal.
In this state of the record the motion to dismiss was proper and is granted.
It is so ordered.
MATHEWS, C. J., and SEBRING and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Local Lodge No. 1248 OF Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists v. ST. Regis Paper Co., 125 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…260; 30 C.J.S. Equity § 582, p. 974. . Dykes v. Dykes, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 598; State ex rel. Carroll v. Sullivan, 160 Fla. 115, 33 So. 2d 735. . Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 42 S.Ct. 427, 66 L.Ed. 848. . Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 711; Pennekamp v. Circuit Court, etc., 155 Fla. 589, 21 So. 2d 41; Wells v. State, Fla.1949, 38 So. 2d 464. . Seaboard Airline Ry. Co. v. Tampa Southern R. Co., 101 Fla. 468, 134 So. 529, 532. . Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.…
-
Hyman Schneider v. Manheimer, 170 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)…nk, Fla.App.1963, 159 So. 2d 106; McMullen v. McMullen, Fla. App.1962, 145 So. 2d 568. The rule in Florida is that certio-rari will not lie to review the judgment of an inferior court if there is any other adequate remedy. Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 711; Huie v. Lewis, Fla. 1954, 71 So. 2d 498; Pennekamp v. Circuit Court, 155 Fla. 589, 21 So. 2d 41 (1945); Sirman v. Conklin, 154 Fla. 304, 17 So. 2d 298 (1944); Saffran v. Adler, 152 Fla. 405, 12 So. 2d 124 (1943); Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So…
-
In re Local Lodge NO. 1248 OF Int'l Ass'n OF MacHinists, 131 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…or proper party to a contempt proceeding arising solely out of the failure of the contemnor to obey an order entered in a civil action primarily to protect private rights of a litigant. In our former decision we relied on Lewis v. Lewis, Fla.1955, 78 So. 2d 711, and Pennekamp v. Circuit Court, etc., 155 Fla. 589, 21 So. 2d 41, as authority for our holding, from which we now recede, that the judgment of contempt here involved was reviewable only by the method provided for review of criminal cases. Re-examin…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Sneed v. Mayo, 66 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1953)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 66 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 1953)
- State v. Sullivan, 43 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 1949)
- John D. Pennekamp & the Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. The Cir. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Cir. in & for Dade Cnty., 155 Fla. 589 (Fla. 1945)
- Cooper v. Sinclair, 66 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 1953)
- Judge Henderson v. Coleman, 150 Fla. 185 (Fla. 1942)
- Lewis v. Lewis, 73 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 1954)
- Jones v. State, 155 Fla. 588 (Fla. 1945)
- Art Lewis v. Kelly, 75 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1954)