State v. Russell
Texas Supreme Court
Appeal from Burnet. Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Vontress. The bond in this case, was executed by Joseph Russell as principal, and Alexander Russell and Willis Russell as securities, in the sum of $250, conditioned for the appearance of Joseph Russell before the District Court, to answer a charge of assault and battery. The bond did not show, on its face, or by any endorsement thereon, before whom it was taken.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Burnet. Tried below before the Hon. Edward H. Vontress. The bond in this case, was executed by Joseph Russell as principal, and Alexander Russell and Willis Russell as securities, in the sum of $250, conditioned for the appearance of Joseph Russell before the District Court, to answer a charge of assault and battery. The bond did not show, on its face, or by any endorsement thereon, before whom it was taken. The answer of the defendants alleged a compliance with its conditions. The other facts appear from the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
This was a suit by scire facias upon a forfeited bond. At the Spring Term, 1857, of the District Court, there was an order of the court, forfeiting the bond, and commanding writs of scire facias to issue to the parties. These orders appeared on the judge’s docket, but were not carried into the minutes of the proceedings of the court. At the Fall Term, 1857, the district attorney moved that the judgment nisi be formally entered as of the previous term; and this was done. Writs of scire facias then issued, in which all the facts were recited, and these writs were served on the sureties in the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- United States v. HudsonDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1894
- Haney v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1888
- City & County of San Francisco v. HartnettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1905
- Rupert v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
- Territory of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Thacker v. WoodringSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1905
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.