4,834
edits
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 18: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Texas Constitution:Article I, Section 18 (view source)
Revision as of 19:33, July 10, 2023
, July 10, 2023no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
* ''Ex parte Preston'', 347 S.W.2d 938, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11657751489807214244#p941 941] (Tex. 1961) ("The courts of this state have long since put to rest the contention that a husband and father may not be imprisoned for failure to pay alimony or child support and yet these matters seem much more closely related to the ordinary definition of debt than is an order of community division. In the matter of alimony or child support the court orders the person to pay over money belonging to him. In ''Ex parte Davis'', 101 Tex. 607 . . . . In our case the order is directed to Preston that he pay over money in his possession that rightfully belongs not to him but to his wife.") | * ''Ex parte Preston'', 347 S.W.2d 938, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11657751489807214244#p941 941] (Tex. 1961) ("The courts of this state have long since put to rest the contention that a husband and father may not be imprisoned for failure to pay alimony or child support and yet these matters seem much more closely related to the ordinary definition of debt than is an order of community division. In the matter of alimony or child support the court orders the person to pay over money belonging to him. In ''Ex parte Davis'', 101 Tex. 607 . . . . In our case the order is directed to Preston that he pay over money in his possession that rightfully belongs not to him but to his wife.") | ||
* ''Ex parte Davis'', 111 S.W. 394, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/ | * ''Ex parte Davis'', 111 S.W. 394, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/111_SW_394.pdf#page=2 395-96] (Tex. 1908) ("The claim of Mrs. Davis for support of . . . . She could not have maintained an action against her husband to enforce that duty, except in the manner in which it was done in the proceedings for divorce. The Constitution of this state does not prohibit the imprisonment of a man except for the collection of a debt, and the proceeding in this case, being for the enforcement of a duty, natural and legal, due from Davis to his wife and children, all of whom were subject to the jurisdiction of the court, does not come within the prohibition of the Constitution.") | ||
* ''Dixon v. State'', 2 Tex. 482, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/2_Tex._482.pdf#page=2 483] (1847) ("It is not to be supposed, and it will scarcely be contended, that it ever entered into the minds of the framers of the Constitution, that they were to be understood as having any application to the administration of the criminal laws; or that they were to have the effect to prevent the punishment of crimes. It was well known to them that the abolition of imprisonment for debt in other States, where it had been effected, had been held to consist with the enactment of laws for the punishment by imprisonment of criminal frauds perpetrated to avoid the payment of debts.") | * ''Dixon v. State'', 2 Tex. 482, [https://texaslegalguide.com/images/2_Tex._482.pdf#page=2 483] (1847) ("It is not to be supposed, and it will scarcely be contended, that it ever entered into the minds of the framers of the Constitution, that they were to be understood as having any application to the administration of the criminal laws; or that they were to have the effect to prevent the punishment of crimes. It was well known to them that the abolition of imprisonment for debt in other States, where it had been effected, had been held to consist with the enactment of laws for the punishment by imprisonment of criminal frauds perpetrated to avoid the payment of debts.") | ||