State v. Eyermann
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. H. D. Wood, Judge. (1) There is no authority in the statutes for requiring a second recognizance, except at a time named in the bond, when the defendant must appear in court, or when the defendant is surrendered by his surety. Secs. 2543-2556, R. S. 1899. (2) At the date of the forfeiture, the first bond for. $5,000 was in full force, and was outstanding for the defendant’s appearance.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court . — Hon. H. D. Wood, Judge. (1) There is no authority in the statutes for requiring a second recognizance, except at a time named in the bond, when the defendant must appear in court, or when the defendant is surrendered by his surety. Secs. 2543-2556, R. S. 1899. (2) At the date of the forfeiture, the first bond for. $5,000 was in full force, and was outstanding for the defendant’s appearance. When the second bond was taken, the defendant had not been surrendered by his surety.. He was not in custody, nor was he discharged upon the faith of the second…
1Opinion of the CourtBurgess, J.
This is a proceeding by scire facias to enforce a forfeiture of a recognizance entered into by Charles Kratz as principal and Gottlieb Eyermann, Jr., as surety, on March 20, 1902, in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, conditioned that said Kratz should be and appear before Division No. 9 of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, from day to day during the present term, and on the first day of any future term thereof to which this cause may be continued, then and there to answer to an indictment pending against him for bribery, and not depart the court without leave.
On the first day of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Aull v. St. Louis Trust Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1899
- Crawford v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- State v. CoxTexas Supreme Court · 1860
- State v. PottsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1875
- State v. AustinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Dies v. Bank of Commerce of SapulpaSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
- National Surety Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1928
- State v. CrosswhiteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- City of St. Louis v. YoungSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
- Ex Parte ReisCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1930
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.