United States v. O'Leary
District Court, S.D. New York
At Law. Action by the United States against Jeremiah A. O’Leary. On motion for remission of penalty of forfeited recognizance.
1Opinion of the Court
LEARNED HAND, District Judge.
It is quite true that under Rev. Stat, § 1020 (Comp. St. § 1684), this motion lies after the term has expired at which judgment was rendered on the recognizance. U. S. v. Jenkins, 176 Fed. 672, 100 C. C. A. 224 (C. C. A. 4th); U. S. v. Traynor (D. C.) 173 Fed. 114. Also that Judge Neterer was justified in ruling out the evidence now offered in exoneration when he tried the action on this recognizance. U. S. v. McGlashen, 66 Fed. 537. Again it has been held that, in spite of the words of the statute, the forfeiture will be remitted against the bail, though the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States v. TraynorDistrict Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1909
- United States v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1909
- United States v. McGlashenU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1895
- United States v. SmartCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1916
- United States v. SantosU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1862
3Cited by8 opinions
- Continental Casualty Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- United States v. KelleherCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1932
- United States v. American Bonding Co. of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1930
- United States v. LibichianCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1940
- United States v. SlaimenDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island · 1925
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.