Full opinion text
PER CURIAM. This is an original habeas corpus proceeding in which the relator, Albert C. Dulaney, seeks release from an order of the District Court of the 73rd Judicial District of Bexar County, adjudging him to be in contempt and committing him to jail. It arose in connection with the trial of catise No. F-9883 in such court styled John G. Kircher et ux. v. Albert C. Dulaney et al., wherein the relator, who was present in open court, was ordered to produce in court a certain promissory note dated December 1, 1945, executed by John G. Kircher et ux., payable to.Albert C. Dulaney, Trustee, or give evidence showing the present physical location of the note and' the owners thereof, which the relator refused to do. He was thereupon in open court adjudged to be in contempt and ordered imprisoned in the county jail until such time as he shall produce the note in court “or produce evidence satisfactory to the court showing where said note may be found, and in whose hands the said note is at the present time”. ⅛ It is the settled law of this State, as well as in other jurisdictions, that in order to obtain the relief here sought the . relator must show that the order or writ of commitment is absolutely void. To sustain that burden it must affirmatively appear that the court was without jurisdiction,’ and that as a result thereof the relator is restrained of his liberty without due process of law. Ex parte Lipscomb, 111 Tex. 409, 239 S.W. 1101; Ex parte Duncan, 127 Tex. 507, 95 S.W.2d 675; Ex parte Hughes, 133 Tex. 505, 129 S.W .2d 270; Ex parte Genecov, 143 Tex. 476, 186 S.W.2d 225, 160 A.L.R. 1099. That burden the relator has failed to discharge. On the contrary it appears that the court had jurisdiction to enter the order and issue the commitment, and thus no element of the principle of due process has been violated. Therefore, the relator is remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Bexar County.