THE SOUTHERN COTTON OIL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
J. F. BATES, MRS. J. F. BATES, MRS. J. T. BOYD AND J. T. BOYD, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a contempt rule against J. E. Bates because the record did not definitively prove that the removed cotton was property held in legal custody. The court emphasized the necessity of clear identification of property in custodia legis before a contempt finding can be made.
No, J. E. Bates cannot be held in contempt because the record fails to establish with certainty that the removed cotton was property in custodia legis.
“In contempt proceedings involving the removal of property in custodia legis, it is essential that the property shown to have been removed be identified as part of the property in custodia legis before the person removing same can be adjudged in contempt for removing it.”
Establishes the legal standard for contempt in cases involving property in legal custody.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA rule for contempt was issued against J. E. Bates for allegedly violating a supersedeas by removing six bales of cotton from the sheriff's custody. B…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause coming on to be heard upon the rule for contempt heretofore issued against the appellee, J. E. Bates, for alleged violation of the supersedeas herein by removing from the custody of the sheriff six bales of cotton alleged to have been in his custody and preserved therein by operation of said supersedeas, and the answer of respondent having been filed to the rule unequivocally denying the alleged acts of contempt as having been committed by him, and it being impossible for the Court to ascertain from the record whether the six bales of cotton alleged to have been removed was part of the cotton seized by the sheriff and held under the attachment in aid of foreclosure, it is therefore ordered that the contempt rule be dismissed, without prejudice.
In contempt proceedings involving the removal of property in custodia legis, it is essential that the property shown to have been removed be identified as part of the property in custodia legis before the person removing same can be adjudged in contempt for removing it. It is impossible in the present case to establish such identification from the sheriff’s return or other portions of the record, and no other proof of the facts being available, the rule will be dismissed but without prejudice.
Dismissed without prejudice.
Whitfield, P.J., and T'eeeell and Davis, J.J., concur.
Bufoed, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur in the opinion and judgment.