Case ID: fla_88/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ex Parte C. E. Peaden.
    Division B.
    Opinion Filed October 11, 1924.
    A Writ of Prohibition will not be issued to prevent a circuit Court taking testimony as to the truth of denials under oath of the allegations in a contempt proceeding charging affirmative violation of an injunction order issued by a court of equity.
    An application for a Writ of Prohibition.
    Writ denied.
    
      J. McHenry Jones and Walter Iiohoe, for Petitioner.
   Per Curiam.

An application having been made for a rule to show cause why the Circuit Court should not be prohibited from taking testimony as to the truth of a sworn answer in a contempt proceeding specifically denying the alleged contempt, upon the ground that the denial under oath entitled the party to a discharge. It appears that the alleged contempt consists in the continued doing what lie was commanded not to- do by an injunction order issued by the Circuit Court as a, court of equity, therefore the application for a Writ of Prohibition is denied. See Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, text 442, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 492; 13 C. J. 75; 6 R. C. L. 534.

This case is wholly unlike Ex Parte Earman and Ex Parte Biggers, 85 -Fla. 293,322.

Writ denied.

Whitfield, P. J., and West and Terrell, J. J., concur.