State ex rel. Alverson v. Sommerville

Citations

• 105 La. 273

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Where a litigant is charged with contempt, for disregard or violation of an order of court, to justify his conviction and sentence, it should be shown that the order was served upon him personally, or that he had actual knowledge of it.</p> <p>2. Until a court has acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter and parties Utigant by the filing of a suit for separation from bed and board, or for divorce, the husband cannot be in contempt of an order made upon a petition, thereafter filed, awarding the custody of a minor child to the wife. Nor does the information, imparted to him by the legal adviser of his wife, that such a suit would be brought impose any obligation upon him with respect either to the custody of the child or to his own personal movements. He should not, therefore, be punished for contempt for taking possession of his child before the filing of-the suit, nor upon the charge that he concealed himself to avoid an order upon that subject, unless it be shown that he knew that such an order had been made.</p> <p>3. Where, however, the husband, in such a case, is brought into court on a rule to show cause why he should not surrender the custody of the child or be punished for contempt, and it appears that the order awarding such custody is then served on him, the matter is entirely within the jurisdiction of the district court, and if the defendant makes no complaint in his pleadings that he has been denied a fair hearing, and the proceedings appear to be regular, this court will not interfere, by prohibition or certiorari, with the findings of the district court.</p>