State v. . Brown
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBaRNHill, J.
The appellant contends that it was error for the court to enter judgment absolute on the sci. fa. until such sci. fa. had been served on the principal and that, therefore, the judgment pronounced is voidable and unenforceable. The question thus sought to be presented is decided by this Court in Bond Co. v. Krider, ante, 361. The decision in that case is controlling. As the defendant Brown was permitted t0‘ remain at large under the bond until the second Monday of the court, his failure to appear constitutes a forfeiture thereof. S. v. Staley, 200 N. C., 385, 157 S. E., 25.
Affirmed.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. . StaleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. DewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Tomlinson v. SharpeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- Southern Auto Company v. FletcherCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
- State v. JenkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- State v. SimmsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.