Legal Opinion

Hall v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Decided October 18, 1972No. 45726PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is a bond forfeiture proceeding.

Appellants first contend that the bond is insufficient to meet the requirements of Art. 17.08 Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., Sec. 4, in that the principal failed to write his address following his signature. Such omission does not exonerate either the principal or the surety. Bowen v. State, 413 S.W.2d 915 (Tex.Cr.App.)

They next contend that the bond is not enforceable because the number of the Justice Precinct in which complaint had been filed was not stated. We find no language in Art. 17.08, supra, which requires that the name of the court…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bowen v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1967
  2. Cummins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1972
  3. Barrington v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1969

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Balboa v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1981
  2. Tatum v. State of TexasCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1976
  3. International Fidelity Insurance Company v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)2002
  4. Hodges v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1973
  5. Rodriguez v. StateCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1984

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API