{
  "id": 8724974,
  "name": "Ford v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ford v. State",
  "decision_date": "1901-10-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "550",
  "last_page": "551",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ark. 550"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725284
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/16/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ark. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722033
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/33/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark. 17",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881234
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/30/0017-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ark. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Ark. 173",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Kan. 314",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 la. 580",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        103939
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/44/0580-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Cal. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2315981
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/44/0475-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2279,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5622267484497023e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6771277012675256
    },
    "sha256": "0186a496db36a737bf66ec16af1a349548e8ef4b4a7fa426523bf26642a22874",
    "simhash": "1:d886d4bb29bd18e7",
    "word_count": 386
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:09.426821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ford v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nPetitioners, Ford and Beatty, were each adjudged guilty of contempt of court by the chancery court of Mississippi county; said contempt consisting in disobedience to a process of injunction issued by said court. One was fined in the sum of $500, and the other in the sum of $100. This proceeding is by certio-rari to quash the judgment, on the ground that the punishment imposed was in excess of the court\u2019s jurisdiction. Art. 7, \u00a7 36, of the constitution is as follows: \u201cThe general assembly shall have power to regulate by law the punishment of contempts not committed in the presence or hearing of the courts or in disobedience of process.\u201d This constitutional provision is couched in such strong affirmative terms as to clearly evince a purpose to limit the power of the legislature to regulate the punishment of contempts to eases where the contempt is not committed in the presence or hearing of the courts, or in disobedience of process. Therefore the legislature, in attempting to prescribe punishment for a contempt committed by disobedience of the court\u2019s process, passed the bounds set by the fundamental law.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Will J. Driver, for petitioners.",
      "G. W. Murphy, Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ford v. State.\nOpinion delivered October 12, 1901.\nConstitutional Law \u2014 Contempts.\u2014An act of tlie legislature prescribing tbe punishment for a contempt committed by disobedience of a court\u2019s process is in violation of art. 7, \u00a7 26, of tbe constitution, wbicb provides that \u201ctbe general assembly shall have power to \u25a0regulate by law the punishment of contempts not committed in the presence or hearing of the courts, or in disobedience of process.\u201d\nCertiorari to Mississippi Chancery Court.\nEdwahd D. RobeRtson,v Chancellor.\nWill J. Driver, for petitioners.\nUnder our statute the punishment for contempt cannot exceed a fine of $50 and an imprisonment for ten days. Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7 686; S3 Ark. 151; 44 Cal. 475; 44 la. 580; 34 Kan. 314. Certi-orari is the proper remedy when the court has exceeded its \u00a1jurisdiction. 39 Ark. 173; 53 Ark. 313; 30 Ark. 17; 33 Ark. 107.\nG. W. Murphy, Attorney General, for respondent.\nThe legislature has no power to impose limitations upon the authority of the courts to punish contempts by disobedience of process. Of. art. 7, \u00a7 36, Const. Ark.; 16 Ark. 384; id. 151; 78 Am. St. 157; S. C. Ill Ga. 168."
  },
  "file_name": "0550-01",
  "first_page_order": 568,
  "last_page_order": 569
}