International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 46837
| Decision Date | 06 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 46837,46837 |
| Citation | 495 S.W.2d 240 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL FIDELITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joseph (Sib) Abraham, Jr., and Anthony C. Aguilar, El Paso, for appellant.
Steve Simmons, Dist. Atty., William B. Hardie, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is a bond forfeiture case.
The record reflects that on May 11, 1971, Jose Acosta was arrested for driving while intoxicated, subsequent offense. A true bill was returned for the said offense on August 5, 1971. On August 30, 1971, Jose Acosta, the principal, was released on bond with the International Fidelity Insurance Co. acting as surety. The principal failed to appear for his trial on December 5, 1972. A judgment nisi was entered on December 8, 1972, in the amount of $750.00 with Jose Acosta as principal and International Fidelity Insurance Co. as surety. A hearing was held on January 9, 1973, for the appellants to show cause why the bail bond in the judgment nisi should not be forfeited. The court found that no cause was shown to exonerate the surety and principal from liability and entered a final judgment of forfeiture on January 10, 1973.
The sole ground of error on appeal is that the principal failed to appear because of an 'uncontrollable circumstance which prevented his appearance in court.' He relies upon Article 22.13, Sec. 3, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P., as a cause to exonerate himself and his surety. Such Article states in part:
'The following causes, and no other, will exonerate the defendant and his sureties, if any, from liability upon the forfeiture taken:
3. The sickness of the principal or some uncontrollable circumstance which prevented his appearance at court, and it must, in every such case, be shown that his failure to appear arose from no fault on his part. . . .'
The principal's contention is that he was not notified of the date to make his personal appearance. The bond reads in part as follows:
'Now, if the said principal shall well and truly make his personal appearance before the said court on the instanter, and further, shall well and truly make his personal appearance before any Court or Magistrate to which said charge may be transferred or before whom this cause may hereafter be pending at any time when, and any place where his presence may be required . . . for all subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Euziere v. State
...617 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), the defendant was held under an almost identical bail bond. We held, citing, International Fidelity Insurance Company v. State, 495 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), that the instanter bond gave proper notice as to when the defendant was to appear. Bond in this cause like......
-
Alvarez v. State
...and inconsistency of the principal's lack of notice to defeat summary judgment. The State relies upon International Fidelity Insurance Company v. State, 495 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) and Caudillo v. State, 541 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.Cr.App.1976) for the proposition that the "instanter" language......
-
Foley v. State, 49173
...bond, but it appears that such proceedings could have been initiated under these circumstances. See International Fidelity Insurance Company v. State, 495 S.W.2d 240 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Hodges v. State, 489 S.W.2d 916 ...
-
Marroquin v. State, 13-96-547-CV
...with regard to the "time" element. Yarbrough v. State, 703 S.W.2d 645, 647 (Tex.Crim.App.1985); International Fidelity Ins. Co. v. State, 495 S.W.2d 240, 241 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Serrano, 804 S.W.2d at Furthermore, the bond meets the statutory "location" requirement by specifying the court ......