Peacock v. State

• Decision Date: 01 January 1875
• Parties: JOHN A. PEACOCK ET AL. v. THE STATE.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

44 Tex. 11

JOHN A. PEACOCK ET AL.

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Texas.

1875.

APPEAL from Titus. Tried below before the Hon. James H. Rogers.

Turner & Turner, for appellants.

A. J. Peeler, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

REEVES, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.

Appellants assign for error the ruling of the District Court in rendering a final judgment against them as sureties for M. M. Miller on a forfeited bail bond.

It appears that Miller, who was indicted for an assault, executed the bond in question, with Turner and Peacock as his sureties. The bond bears date September 27, 1871, and required Miller to appear before the District Court of Titus county on the second Monday in October, 1871, to answer the charge against him. Miller having failed to appear at the March term, 1873, of the District Court, a judgment nisi was rendered against him and his sureties, Peacock and Turner, on the 17th March, 1873. On the same day the court ordered an alias capias for Miller. The capias was issued April 16, 1873, and was executed by the arrest of Miller on June 1, 1873, and by taking his appearance bond, with James Y. Bradfield and James M. Goolsby as sureties, to appear before the District Court and answer the charge for the same offense named in the bond on which appellants were sureties. At the July term, 1873, of the court, Miller appeared, and on his answer the nisi judgment against him and his sureties, Peacock and Turner, taken at the previous term, was set aside.

On the 19th of March, 1874, Miller made default, and judgment nisi was taken against him and his securities, Bradfield and Goolsby, on their bond of June 1, 1873, and also against Peacock and Turner, on their bond of September 27, 1871, and scire facias was issued.

At the November term, 1874, the judgment nisi against the sureties, Bradfield and Goolsby, was set aside, and their bond, which was held to be defective, was quashed. At the same time judgment final was rendered against Peacock and Turner, and they appealed.

The question in the case is, whether there was error in rendering this judgment against them or not.

It is contended for the State that the appellants were responsible for the appearance of Miller at the term of the court held in March, 1873, when their bond was forfeited. In support of this position attention has been directed to the terms of the bond. It appears from the bond that appellants bound themselves for the appearance of Miller, their principal, from day to day and from term to term of the court, and that he should not depart therefrom without the leave of the court.

The condition of the bond is broad enough to fix the liability of the sureties for Miller's appearance to answer the charge against him at the time the forfeiture was taken, and the sureties were bound by the bond unless the proceedings subsequent to the bond exonerated them from liability thereon.

If there had been a final judgment upon the forfeiture taken in March, 1873, against Turner and Peacock, on...