Kessler v. State Ex Rel. Davis

188 So. 695, 28 Ala. App. 506, 1939 Ala. App. LEXIS 147
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 3, 1939
Docket6 Div. 450.
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 So. 695 (Kessler v. State Ex Rel. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kessler v. State Ex Rel. Davis, 188 So. 695, 28 Ala. App. 506, 1939 Ala. App. LEXIS 147 (Ala. Ct. App. 1939).

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

This purports to be an appeal by A. H. Kessler from an order adjudging him to be in contempt of the nisi prius court in that he violated a decree of that court.

We deem it not worth while to enter upon any elaborate discussion of the matters shown by the record, since it is clearly settled that “contempt proceedings,” under our Statutes, cannot be reviewed by appeal. Bankston v. Lakeman, Ex parte Bankston, 219 Ala. 508, 122 So. 819; Pope v. State, 229 Ala. 643, 159 So. 51.

Appellant has incorporated with the record a petition, in the alternate, for a writ of mandamus, directed to Hon. J. Fritz Thompson, as Presiding Judge of the-Circuit Court of Jefferson County, seeking a review of the order adjudging him in contempt of court.

But neither is this the way such order may be reviewed. Ex parte Branch, 105 Ala. 231, 16 So. 926.

It results, the appeal must be, and is, dismissed; and the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Appeal dismissed; writ denied.

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

Related

Frutiger v. State Ex Rel. Davis
188 So. 695 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 So. 695, 28 Ala. App. 506, 1939 Ala. App. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kessler-v-state-ex-rel-davis-alactapp-1939.