State v. Lane
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from Washington District Court. The county attorney of Washington county brought suit against A. D. Lane, Percival Perdue, and W. PL Cottins, as sureties of Frank Lane in a recognizance given by said Frank Lane as a witness in a criminal case pending in the district court. The criminal action had been continued until next term, and Frank Lane was required to recognize for his appearance to appear and testify as a witness on the part of the state.
Read the full summary
Error from Washington District Court. The county attorney of Washington county brought suit against A. D. Lane, Percival Perdue, and W. PL Cottins, as sureties of Frank Lane in a recognizance given by said Frank Lane as a witness in a criminal case pending in the district court. The criminal action had been continued until next term, and Frank Lane was required to recognize for his appearance to appear and testify as a witness on the part of the state. To the petition filed against them the sureties demurred. The district court, at the April Term 1872, sustained the demurrer, and The State…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Brewer, J.:
Frank Lane was a witness for the state in a criminal case pending in the district court of Washington county. The case was continued, and Frank Lane required to give a recognizance, with sureties, to appear and testify at the succeeding term. He gave such recognizance with defendants in error as sureties. Failing to appear, this recognizance was forfeited, and suit brought thereon. The sureties demurred. The demurrer was sustained and this ruling the state seeks by this proceeding to reverse. The ruling of the district court was correct.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Appelgate v. YoungSupreme Court of Kansas · 1900
- Buehl v. American Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1919