State v. Branch
Decision Date | 21 November 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 364.,364. |
Citation | 207 N. C. 415,177 S.E. 14 |
Parties | STATE. v. BRANCH et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Stack, Judge.
Proceeding for forfeiture of bond by the State against Marvin Branch and another. Judgment for the State, and defendants appeal.
Error.
At the August term, 1933, Marvin Branch was tried in the superior court on charges of abandonment and nonsupport. He pleaded guilty of nonsupport of his children, "which plea was accepted by the State." The prayer for judgment was continued for two years upon condition that the defendant pay the cost, and the further condition that he pay the sum of $20 per month for the support of his two children, payable to the clerk of the court of Cabarrus county on or before the first day of each month for a period of two years; and upon the further condition "that he pay $20.00 of the cost at this term, and give bond to secure the balance to be paid at the October Term of Court 1933." Thereupon a bond was given in the sum of $300, signed by R. T. Sides as surety. This bond provided that Marvin Branch At the October term, 1933, the defendant Branch was sentenced to work the roads for a period of four months. Thereafter at the January term, 1934, the records show the following entry: "Order restored on motion of solicitor." Subsequently at the April term, 1934, the following entry was made in the case, to wit:
Accordingly, a sci. fa. was issued to the surety, Sides, reciting a judgment nisi for $300 at the March term, 1934, in favor of the state and against Marvin Branch and his surety, R. T. Sides, "according to the provision of the act of the General Assembly, concerning bail, for the personal appearance at said term of our court of said Marvin Branch in the matter of the State v. Marvin Branch then...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Walston v. Greene
...be attributed to a child of the age of the plaintiff at the time of this injury. ' This Court in Morris v. Sprott, supra, [207 N.Car. 358, 177 S.E. 14.] said in reference to the last sentence of the opinion in the Ashby case: 'However, this court has recently distinguished, if not overruled......
- Morris v. Sprott