Ex parte Diggs

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Ex parte Diggs

139 S.W.2d 263, 139 Tex. Crim. 139, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 261

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 24, 1940

DocketNo. 21145

StatusPublished

This text of 139 S.W.2d 263 (Ex parte Diggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte Diggs, 139 S.W.2d 263, 139 Tex. Crim. 139, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 261 (Tex. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding. Appellants were adjudged guilty of contempt for violating an injunction issued in a civil case. They sought release by way of habeas corpus and were remanded to custody by the district court of Wichita County. Hence this appeal.

In view of the fact that the commitment grew out of proceedings had in a civil action, we are constrained to decline to entertain jurisdiction. In Ex parte Cummings, 170 S. W. 153, it is shown that the commitment grew out of proceedings had in a civil action. Cummings sought to appeal to this court after he had been remanded to custody by the district court in a habeas corpus proceeding. This court declined to entertain jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal* In Ex parte Hill, 114 S. W. (2d) 247, a similar situation was presented. In dismissing the appeal in that case the court said: “Wherever the matter of confinement grows out of a civil proceeding and appellant appeals, this court will decline to entertain the appeal by reason of the comity between this court and the civil courts.”

The appeal is dismissed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

This is a habeas corpus proceeding. Appellants were adjudged guilty of contempt for violating an injunction issued in a civil case. They sought release by way of habeas corpus and were remanded to custody by the district court of Wichita County. Hence this appeal.

In view of the fact that the commitment grew out of proceedings had in a civil action, we are constrained to decline to entertain jurisdiction. In Ex parte Cummings, 170 S. W. 153, it is shown that the commitment grew out of proceedings had in a civil action. Cummings sought to appeal to this court after he had been remanded to custody by the district court in a habeas corpus proceeding. This court declined to entertain jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal* In Ex parte Hill, 114 S. W. (2d) 247, a similar situation was presented. In dismissing the appeal in that case the court said: “Wherever the matter of confinement grows out of a civil proceeding and appellant appeals, this court will decline to entertain the appeal by reason of the comity between this court and the civil courts.”

The appeal is dismissed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 S.W.2d 263, 139 Tex. Crim. 139, 1940 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-diggs-texcrimapp-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack