Ex Parte Meadows
| Decision Date | 30 October 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 17962.,17962. |
| Citation | 87 S.W.2d 254 |
| Parties | Ex parte MEADOWS. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from County Criminal Court, Dallas County; Henry King, Judge.
Petition by Albert Meadows for a writ of habeas corpus. From a judgment remanding him to custody, petitioner appeals.
Affirmed.
Ivan Irwin, of Dallas, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
Relator was charged by complaint and information in the county court of Dallas county with the offense of theft. He executed an appearance bond which he signed in person. The names of the sureties in said bond were signed by their attorney in fact, who it appears was duly authorized in writing to execute bail bonds generally. Relator having been released from custody, the district attorney filed a motion to quash the bond on the ground that the sureties had not personally signed same. The trial court sustained the motion and relator was rearrested. Upon a hearing under writ of habeas corpus he was remanded to custody. Hence this appeal.
In Walker v. State, 109 Tex. Cr. R. 618, 6 S.W.(2d) 356, this court considered our statutory provisions relative to the execution of bail bonds and reached the conclusion that they required that the signature or mark of the principal be made in person. The statutes to which reference was made relate to the sureties, as well as to the principal. Hence the decision in Walker's Case is applicable to the present situation. It might be added that article 279, C. C. P. (Vernon's Ann.), provides that the court or officer taking the bond may require the sureties to make an affidavit showing their financial condition. We quote the form of the affidavit provided in said statute as follows: "I, do swear that I am worth, in my own right, at least the sum of (here insert the amount in which the surety is bound), after deducting from my property all that which is exempt by the Constitution and laws of the State from forced sale, and after the payment of all my debts of every description, whether individual or security debts, and after satisfying all incumbrances upon my property which are known to me; that I reside in ____ county, and have property in this State liable to execution worth said amount or more."
Again, article 280, C. C. P. (Vernon's Ann.), reads as follows: "Such affidavit shall not be conclusive as to the sufficiency of the security; and, if the court or officer taking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weddel v. State, 08-88-00023-CV
...surety, Appellant relies upon an Attorney General opinion, Op.Tex.Atty.Gen. No. MW-507 (1982), and the opinion in Ex parte Meadows, 129 Tex.Crim. 297, 87 S.W.2d 254 (1935). Meadows itself was based upon Walker v. State, 109 Tex.Crim. 618, 6 S.W.2d 356 (1928), which in turn relied primarily ......
-
Zidell v. State, 50940
...Appellant in challenging the above conclusion relies upon Walker, et al. v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 618, 6 S.W.2d 356; Ex parte Meadows, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 87 S.W.2d 254 and Wilkins v. State, 130 Tex.Cr.R. 36, 91 S.W.2d 354. Each of these cases is distinguishable from the instant case. In Walk......
-
Tietz v. State
...the surety sign the bond personally, rather than permitting an attorney-in-fact for the surety to sign the bond. Ex parte Meadows, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 297, 87 S.W.2d 254 (1935); Op.Tex.Att'y Gen. No. MW-507 (1982). Because there is no evidence Tietz personally signed the bond, he cannot be held l......