State v. Weatherwax
Supreme Court of Kansas
Error from FramMin District Court. The county attorney brought an action in the name of The State against Weatherwax, upon a forfeited recognizance given by the latter in a criminal proceeding for his (Weather-wax’s) appearance at the then next ensuing term of the district court, “then and there to answer to the charge of malicious mischief.”
Read the full summary
Error from FramMin District Court. The county attorney brought an action in the name of The State against Weatherwax, upon a forfeited recognizance given by the latter in a criminal proceeding for his (Weather-wax’s) appearance at the then next ensuing term of the district court, “then and there to answer to the charge of malicious mischief.” Weatherwax answered, alleging that “at the time he signed and executed the said recognizance he was a minor under the age of twenty-one years, to-wit, of the age of nineteen years, wherefore he prays that the plaintiff take nothing by its petition…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Valentine, J.:
The only question involved in this case isj whether a minor who is a defendant in a criminal proceeding may bind himself pérsonally by a recognizance entered into by himself and sureties for his personal appearance at *464the next term of the district court to answer to a charge for committing a criminal offense. The counsel for the defendant claim that a minor cannot so bind himself. They seem to claim that a recognizance is substantially a contract, and they certainly claim that “ a minor is, in truth, not bound by cmy contraet.” It is…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Barkley v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- Grissom v. BeidlemanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- J. G. Pierce Co. v. WallaceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- State v. EstabrookSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- Weatherwax v. StateSupreme Court of Kansas · 1877
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.