Gorman v. State

• Decision Date: 01 January 1873
• Citation: 38 Tex. 112
• Parties: JOHN GORMAN ET AL. v. THE STATE OF TEXAS.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

38 Tex. 112

JOHN GORMAN ET AL.

v.THE STATE OF TEXAS.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1873.

A bail bond which describes A. B. as principal “conditioned, that whereas an indictment has been preferred against A. B.,” etc., “now if the above bounden ____________ shall make his personal appearance at the next term,” etc., if in other respects good, is not vitiated by the failure to insert the name of A. B. after the word “bounden,” but may be enforced as the bond of A. B.

APPEAL from Bastrop. Tried below before the Hon. J. P. Richardson.

Jones & Sayers, for appellant. The omission of the name of the principal, to wit, “John Gorman,” in the condition of the bond, is fatal. The bond being statutory, must comply in letter as well as in spirit with the requirements of the law, upon which its validity depends. By reference to art. 2732, Pas. Dig., it will be perceived that the second requisite of a bail bond is imperative, and unless this requirement is satisfied the bond will be nugatory. Daily v. The State, 4 Tex. 417; The State v. Cotton, 6 Tex. 425;Cotton v. The State, 7 Tex. 547;McDonough v. The State, 19 Tex. 294. In the case at bar the name of the principal is omitted, and that fact should have been held as a reason sufficient for the discharge of the defendants (appellants) in the court below.

Attorney General, for appellees.

OGDEN, J.

There is no error in the judgment of the district court in this case. John Gorman, as principal, with others as sureties, entered into bond in the sum of $200, conditioned that, whereas, an indictment had been preferred against John Gorman, etc. * * Now if the above bounden _________ shall make his personal appearance at the next term of the district court, to be holden at the court house in the town of Bastrop, on the fourth Monday in November, 1871, to answer said indictment, etc. It is contended that the blank in the condition after bounden vitiates the bond for uncertainty, but we do not so understand the force of the bond nor the requirements of the statute.

John Gorman was the principal in the bond; he was the party indicted, and it is very clear that he was the defendant, and the one to answer to the indictment found against him, and if his name had been inserted in the blank it would not have made the conditions more certain or definite. The above bounden meant John Gorman, the defendant, and could, by no legitimate construction of the language or the law, have reference to any one else.

The judgment is...