Skip to main content
· 5/3/1890

Ex parte Acock

Citations

  • 84 Cal. 50
  • 23 P. 1029
  • 1890 Cal. LEXIS 758

Syllabus

<p>Contempt—Judgment of Conviction —Habeas Corpus—Conclusiveness of Facts — Review of Evidence. —The facts stated in a judgment of conviction for contempt of court are conclusive, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support them cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus.</p> <p>Id.—Affidavits upon Information and-Belief. — After a full and fair hearing, in which the prisoner has been given full opportunity for defense, a judgment of conviction, for contempt cannot be held to be void because some of the charges in the affidavits are made upon information and belief, and the prisoner will not be- released upon habeas corpus on that ground.</p> <p>Id. ■— Abuse of Process or Proceedings of Court ■— Fraud —■ Preventing Return of Property Replevied —Dismissal. —When the facts stated in a judgment of conviction for contempt show that an action of replevin was commenced in bad faith by the plaintiff for the purpose of using the process of the court to obtain the possession of property from the defendant in an improper manner, without a trial of the right of property, and that after the same had been replevied, its removal from the defendant’s premises, where it was seized and kept, was wrongfully procured from the keeper without the sheriff’s consent, for the purpose of preventing its return under an undertaking tendered therefor, and that the action was thereupon dismissed, and the property delivered by the sheriff to the plaintiff, under the false representation of plaintiff that the action had been compromised, such facts must be accepted as true upon habeas corpus, and the acts so stated are punishable contempts, within the meaning of section 1209 of the Code of Civil Procedure, making deceits or abuse of the process or proceedings of the court by the parties to an action or-special proceeding, or rescuing any property in the custody of an officer by virtue of an order or process of court, contempts of the authority of the court; and the plaintiff could not shield himself

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • noting the Court granted a discretionary application where the case started as a child custody modification action, but child support was the only issue raised on appeal
  • noting the Court granted a discretionary application where the case started as a child custody modification action but child support was the only issue raised on appeal
  • “ ‘[T]his Court properly gives due deference to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.’ ” (citations omitted)
  • when trial court is finder of fact, its factual findings are not set aside unless clearly erroneous

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Paterson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.