State v. Wilder
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Shaw, J., Richland, April, 1878. These were rules issued by the state against Charles M. Wilder and Ann E. Jackson, to show cause why a recognizance entered into by them, as sureties for the appearance of one Houston at the Court of General Sessions to answer to a bill of indictment, should' not be forfeited, Houston having failed to appear.
Read the full summary
Before Shaw, J., Richland, April, 1878. These were rules issued by the state against Charles M. Wilder and Ann E. Jackson, to show cause why a recognizance entered into by them, as sureties for the appearance of one Houston at the Court of General Sessions to answer to a bill of indictment, should' not be forfeited, Houston having failed to appear. The defendants, for cause, showed that the writ of scire facias has been abolished by Section 443 of the code of procedure, and the remedies obtainable under that form must be obtained by civil actions. The Circuit judge overruled the returns,…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Mol ver, A. J.
These two cases, involving the same question, were heard and will be considered together. That question is, whether the Court of General Sessions has jurisdiction to estreat a recognizance given to secure the appearance before said court of a person charged with crime to answer to a bill of indictment to be preferred against him.
The grounds upon which jurisdiction is denied are, that the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of Chapter CXLIL, (Gen. Stat. 750,) under which the proceedings in these cases were instituted, are practically identical…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Scroggie v. Scarborough, State TreasurerSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1931
- In Re Estate NeubertSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1900
- State Ex Rel. O'Connell v. YelleWashington Supreme Court · 1958