Legal Opinion

United States v. Duke

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided May 22, 1925No. 8353PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The surety company relies on Joelson v. U. S. (C. C. A.) 287 F. 106, and U. S. v. Mace (C. C. A.) 281 F. 635. I think neither of these eases are decisive.

In the Joelson Case there was no particular time and no particular place when and where the defendant was to appear, and the court said, at page 109:

“Under the terms of the contract, Rosen was under no obligations whatever to appear at any time or place before the court. This omission of the condition was a fatal defect, and the recognizance was a nullity.”

In this case, the court, the place, and the time…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. United States v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. United States v. EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  3. Joelson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1923
  4. United States v. MaceCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1922

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. National Surety Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API