Ringgold Co. v. Ross
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Ringgold District Court. ActioN upon a recognizance executed by defendants for the appearance of one B. F. Ross before the District Court of Ringgold county, Iowa, on the 26th day of March, 1873, to answer to a charge of burglary.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ringgold District Court. ActioN upon a recognizance executed by defendants for the appearance of one B. F. Ross before the District Court of Ringgold county, Iowa, on the 26th day of March, 1873, to answer to a charge of burglary. The petition alleges that, at the time of the execution of the bond, the next term of the District Court of said county was, by law, fixed on the 26th day of March, 1873, and that, subsequent to the taking of said bond said term was, pursuant to law, by a general order, changed to the 3d day of February, 1873, and that, at said time, a forfeiture of the…
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
The first error assigned needs not, in the state of the record, be considered. The bond was forfeited on the first day of the term, before an indictment had been found, and because of the failure of defendant to appear and challenge the grand jury. The forfeiture'was premature. The defendant had the privilege of appearing and objecting to the grand j ury, but he was under no obligation to do so.
The bond could be forfeited only for a failure to appear when his presence was lawfully required. The State of Iowa v. Klingman, 14 Iowa, 404.
Reversed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. KlingmanSupreme Court of Iowa · 1862