From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. State ex rel

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A
Nov 21, 1941
4 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1941)

Opinion

Opinion Filed November 21, 1941

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Worth W. Trammell, Judge.

Joseph B. Cozatt, for Appellant;

Owen W. Pittman, Jr., for Appellee.


In this case the appellant sued out writ of error to a judgment holding him in contempt of court for failure to obey the order of the Circuit Court.

Appeals do not lie from a judgment of commitment or of a fine for violating or refusing to comply with an order of the Court made in due course and within the jurisdiction of the Court. Miller v. Miller, 91 Fla. 82, 107 So. 251.

Orders of the chancellor made in the course of the hearing in determination of a contempt proceeding, but prior to a decision in the contempt proceedings on its merits, pursuant to rule nisi, are not appealable interlocutory orders or decrees within the purview of Sec. 4961 C.G.L. permitting appeals from any interlocutory order, decision, judgment or decree of the Circuit Courts of this State when sitting in Chancery. Culpepper v. Culpepper, 103 Fla. 390, 138 So. 799.

It, therefore, follows that the writ of error does not give this Court jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Circuit Court here involved.

The writ of error is quashed.

So ordered.

BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, and ADAMS, J. J., concur.


Summaries of

Hamilton v. State ex rel

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A
Nov 21, 1941
4 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1941)
Case details for

Hamilton v. State ex rel

Case Details

Full title:FRANK M. HAMILTON v. STATE OF FLORIDA, ex rel. DOROTHY HABEL HAMILTON

Court:Supreme Court of Florida. Division A

Date published: Nov 21, 1941

Citations

4 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1941)
4 So. 2d 660

Citing Cases

State v. Sullivan

It was civil because it was for the benefit of the wife and the chancellor's order was for coercive purposes,…

State Board of Funeral Directors v. Cooksey

See also People ex rel. Dean, et al., v. Ann Arbor Ry. Co., et al., 137 Mich. 673, 100 N.W. 892; Wingert v.…