Ford v. State

64 S.W. 879, 69 Ark. 550, 1901 Ark. LEXIS 115
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided October 12, 1901·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Wood, J.

Petitioners, Ford and Beatty, were each adjudged guilty of contempt of court by the chancery court of Mississippi county; said contempt consisting in disobedience to a process of injunction issued by said court. One was fined in the sum of $500, and the other in the sum of $100. This proceeding is by certio-rari to quash the judgment, on the ground that the punishment imposed was in excess of the court’s jurisdiction. Art. 7, § 36, of the constitution is as follows: “The general assembly shall have power to regulate by law the punishment of contempts not committed in the presence or hearing of the courts or in disobedience of process.” This constitutional provision is couched in such strong affirmative terms as to clearly evince a purpose to limit the power of the legislature to regulate the punishment of contempts to eases where the contempt is not committed in the presence or hearing of the courts, or in disobedience of process. Therefore the legislature, in attempting to prescribe punishment for a contempt committed by disobedience of the court’s process, passed the bounds set by the fundamental law.

Affirmed.

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

Ford v. State, 64 S.W. 879, 69 Ark. 550, 1901 Ark. LEXIS 115 (Ark. 1901).

64 S.W. 879 (Ford v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Damron v. Damron
2019 Ark. App. 160 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2019)
Yarbrough v. Yarbrough
748 S.W.2d 123 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1988)
Ex parte Coulter
255 S.W. 15 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1923)
Ex parte Dukes
243 S.W. 863 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1922)
Weldon v. State
234 S.W. 466 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1921)
Turk & Wallen v. State
185 S.W. 472 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1916)
Bryan v. State
137 S.W. 561 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)