From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ex Parte Davis

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 14, 1932
139 So. 286 (Ala. 1932)

Opinion

5 Div. 104.

January 14, 1932.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Lee County; Hon. S. L. Brewer, Judge.

Hollis O. Black, of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Private soldiers and noncommissioned officers while engaged in performance of their military duties are exempt from arrest on mesne process. 5 C. J. 336, 438; 10 U.S.C.A. 610; Birmingham Dry-Goods Co. v. Bledsoe, 113 Ala. 418, 21 So. 403. This proceeding is one in civil contempt, from which the petitioner is exempt. Ex parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272, 50 So. 218; 9 Cyc. 6, 33; 13 C. J. 61; Ex parte Tittel, 67 Cal. 261, 7 P. 678; Weber v. Zimmerman, 23 Md. 45; Smith v. McQuade, 59 Hun, 374, 13 N.Y. S. 62; 18 R. C. L. 1081; 5 C. J. 366; Lassiter v. Wilson, 207 Ala. 669, 93 So. 598; Newport Light Co. v. Newport, 151 U.S. 527, 14 S.Ct. 429, 38 L.Ed. 259; Ex parte Blackburn, 204 Ala. 132, 85 So. 495; 23 C. J. 904; 50 C. J. 443; Place v. Washburn, 163 Mass. 530, 40 N.E. 853; Ex parte Harlan, 39 Ala. 563; Penny v. Walker, 64 Me. 430, 18 Am. Rep. 269; Ex parte Hamilton Smith, 51 Ala. 66; Ex parte Murray (D.C.) 35 F. 496; Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 327. Prohibition is the appropriate remedy. Ex parte State ex rel. Martin, 200 Ala. 15, 75 So. 327.

Jim Gibson, of Birmingham, for respondent.

A writ of prohibition cannot be resorted to where there is a plain speedy and adequate remedy by appeal. State v. McCord, 203 Ala. 347, 83 So. 71; Ex parte Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 198 Ala. 24, 73 So. 418; Goodwin v. McConnell, 187 Ala. 431, 65 So. 788; Hill v. Wittmeier, 209 Ala. 355, 96 So. 327. Contempt for failure to pay alimony is of a criminal nature and a special criminal offense. Ex parte Hardy, 68 Ala. 315; 6 R. C. L. 530; Robertson v. State, 20 Ala. App. 514, 104 So. 561; Riegler v. Kalamazoo Circuit Judge, 222 Mich. 421, 192 N.W. 690; State v. Klene, 201 Mo. App. 408, 212 S.W. 55; Ex parte Murray (D.C.) 35 F. 496; Murray v. Murray, 84 Ala. 363, 4 So. 239.


The record discloses that the petitioner is a private, or noncommissioned officer, in the United States Army; that he has been cited to show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt of court for failing to pay alimony decreed against him. The process for said citation prays that this petitioner be committed to jail as for a refusal or failure to pay said alimony.

Section 1237, Revised Statutes U.S. (10 USCA § 610), provides: "No enlisted man shall, during his term of service, be arrested on mesne process, or taken in charge in execution for any debt, unless it was contracted before his enlistment, and amounted to $20 when first contracted."

"Both by act of congress and by statute in many of the states private soldiers and noncommissioned officers while engaged in the performance of their military duties are exempt from arrest on civil process." 5 C. J. 366, § 224.

So the question here is, Is the proposed arrest and threatened imprisonment based on mesne or civil process?

"Civil contempt consists in failing to do something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action, for the benefit of the opposing party therein, and is therefore, not an offense against the dignity of the court, but against the party in whose behalf the violated order is made." 13 C. J. page 6; Ex parte Dickens, 162 Ala. 272, 50 So. 218. We think the distinction between civil and criminal contempt has been aptly drawn by the Indiana and Kentucky courts. "Contempts of court for which punishment is inflicted for the primary purpose of vindicating public authority are denominated criminal, while those in which the enforcement of civil rights and remedies is the ultimate object of the punishment are denominated civil contempts." Anderson v. Indianapolis Drop Forging Co., 34 Ind. App. 100, 72 N.E. 277, 278; Wages v. Com., 13 Ky. Law Rep. 925.

As the circuit court had no power or jurisdiction to imprison the petitioner for a civil contempt while enlisted as a soldier in the United States Army, and as he has no adequate remedy by appeal (Ex parte Dickens, supra), the writ of prohibition is awarded prohibiting the circuit court from punishing the petitioner for the alleged contempt so long as he may be an enlisted private or noncommissioned soldier in the United States Army.

Writ of prohibition awarded.

GARDNER, BOULDIN, and FOSTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Ex Parte Davis

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 14, 1932
139 So. 286 (Ala. 1932)
Case details for

Ex Parte Davis

Case Details

Full title:Ex parte DAVIS

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jan 14, 1932

Citations

139 So. 286 (Ala. 1932)
139 So. 286

Citing Cases

Ex Parte State

Prohibition is the appropriate remedy. Ex parte Wilkinson, 220 Ala. 529, 126 So. 102; Strother v. McCord, 222…

State ex Rel. Rabren v. Baxter

Mandamus is the proper remedy to review an order, decree or judgment which the trial court has no power to…