Ex parte R. C. & G. W. Brown

Arizona Supreme Court

Ex parte R. C. & G. W. Brown

77 P. 489, 3 Ariz. 411, 1892 Ariz. LEXIS 18

CourtArizona Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 7, 1892

DocketCivil No. 358

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 77 P. 489 (Ex parte R. C. & G. W. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Arizona Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ex parte R. C. & G. W. Brown, 77 P. 489, 3 Ariz. 411, 1892 Ariz. LEXIS 18 (Ark. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

GOODING, C. J.

The record in this case discloses that the defendants were cited regularly to appear in the district court to answer a charge of contempt of court, preferred in writing, and that they did appear and answered, and that there were facts presented to that court upon which that court adjudged that a contempt had been committed.

I conclude that its decision upon that issue is one that this court cannot review; and I think the authorities are abundant and overwhelming on this proposition. If the law were otherwise, there would be no such thing as preserving order in courts or preventing a collision between courts. I think the proposition is well settled, and not open to doubt or dispute. On the facts set up in the record as shown to this cpurt, by the record produced herein, that court found that it had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and found facts showing that it had jurisdiction. It having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties, this court has no power or authority to interfere with the judgment of that court in that matter.

I must therefore remand the prisoners into the custody of the sheriff of Pima County.

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

GOODING, C. J.

The record in this case discloses that the defendants were cited regularly to appear in the district court to answer a charge of contempt of court, preferred in writing, and that they did appear and answered, and that there were facts presented to that court upon which that court adjudged that a contempt had been committed.

I conclude that its decision upon that issue is one that this court cannot review; and I think the authorities are abundant and overwhelming on this proposition. If the law were otherwise, there would be no such thing as preserving order in courts or preventing a collision between courts. I think the proposition is well settled, and not open to doubt or dispute. On the facts set up in the record as shown to this cpurt, by the record produced herein, that court found that it had jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, and found facts showing that it had jurisdiction. It having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the parties, this court has no power or authority to interfere with the judgment of that court in that matter.

I must therefore remand the prisoners into the custody of the sheriff of Pima County.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 P. 489, 3 Ariz. 411, 1892 Ariz. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-r-c-g-w-brown-ariz-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack