Legal Opinion

State v. Halloway

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 15, 1844PublishedCited by 1 opinion

This was a motion to quash a recognizance, determined in the Lawrence Circuit Court, in October, 1843, before the Hon. Thomas Johnson, one of the circuit judges. The recognizance was entered into by Halloway and four others, in the penal sum of $>500; conditioned, reciting, that H. had been charged before J. S. Ficklin and Wm.

Read the full summary

This was a motion to quash a recognizance, determined in the Lawrence Circuit Court, in October, 1843, before the Hon. Thomas Johnson, one of the circuit judges. The recognizance was entered into by Halloway and four others, in the penal sum of $>500; conditioned, reciting, that H. had been charged before J. S. Ficklin and Wm. B. Johnson, two justices of the peace for said county, by Andrew T. Lively, with having committed an assault and battery upon •him, and upon examination had, it appeared that the charge was true; then, if H. should appear before the circuit court of said county on the…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Sebastian, J.

The motion by the defendants, the recognizors of the bond, was prematurely made. No forfeiture of it, by the failure of Halloway to appear according to its conditions, had been taken, as appears by the record; nor were they, as we can .see, sought to be charged upon it by any proceeding in court for that purpose. . No right of action accrued on it until a forfeiture of the condition, nor until then could any action by sci.fa. or otherwise, be instituted on it. There was no suit over which the court had jurisdiction, nor could there be any, until the State instituted…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Marr v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1871

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

Powered by the Exa API