Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

106 Miss. 131

Millis v. State

Mississippi Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1913

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1913-10-15

HoN. R. E.. Sheehy, Chancellor. F. E. Millis was imprisoned for contempt of court in failing to pay alimony and appeals. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court. The first point we desire to call the court’s attention to, is the one raised by the assistant .attorney-general, in which he contends that this is a civil contempt and,the punishment coercive in its nature, and for that reason the chief justice erred in granting the appeal under section 39, Code 1906.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1913-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2015

20 state decisions

6019131920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cook, ' J.,

¶1delivered the opinion, of the conrt.

¶2This is an appeal from an imprisonment for contempt. Appellant filed a hill against his wife, ashing- the chancery conrt to grant him a divorce. ‘The conrt denied the prayer of the bill, and, upon the application of his wife, ordered that he pay his wife alimony in monthly installments of seven dollars and fifty cents. Appellant failed to pay the alimony, and, upon the motion of his wife, a rule was granted by the chancellor, citing appellant to appear and show canse why he should not be punished for contempt. After a full hearing, the chancellor was not convinced that appellant had not willfully, deliberately, and contumaciously ignored the orders of the court, and therefore sentenced him to confinement in jail, unless he paid the alimony as directed.

¶3We find no error in this action of the court. When this appeal reached this court, it was docketed as a state case, and the attorney-general appeared for the state. This is in no sense a criminal proceeding, but is a civil proceeding, and should have been entered ‘on the civil docket.

¶4Affirmed.

/106/miss/131 · .json · Public domain