State v. Marshall
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court. Action upon a bail bond, which, recites that the principal has been “held to answer upon a charge of seduction.” Trial to jury and verdict for the .State. Defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtDillon, J.
x. bond: baiI' The questions made upon the demurrer were waived by answering over and going to trial. The only question presented by the record is, whether a bail bond, otherwise in due form, is sufficient to create a liability which does not describe or designate the offense with which the principal is charged any more definitely than by the use of the word “seduction.” The District Court held the bond sufficient. It is contended by the appellants that seduction is not a crime, but there, must be a debauching as well, and the female must be of previously chaste character. This is all true,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. MurphyNevada Supreme Court · 1897
- Marmaduke v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1909
- State v. BirchimNevada Supreme Court · 1873
- Territory of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Thacker v. ConnerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1906
- Hannah v. WellsOregon Supreme Court · 1872
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.