State v. Brock, 76

• Decision Date: 31 October 1951
• Docket Number: No. 76,76
• Citation: 67 S.E.2d 283,234 N.C. 391
• Parties: STATE, v. BROCK et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 283

67 S.E.2d 283

234 N.C. 391

STATE, v. BROCK et al.

No. 76

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 31, 1951

Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Ralph Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Robert S. Cahoon, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant David Brock and National Surety Corp., Surety, appellants.

DEVIN, Chief Justice.

On the record before us the judgment absolute decreeing forfeiture of defendant Brock's bail bond, on which National Surety Corporation was surety, must be affirmed.

The writ of scire facias served on the defendant and his surety recited that judgment nisi had been rendered against them and they were commanded to appear and show cause if any they had why the judgment should not be made absolute. They answered with general denial of liability. When the matter came on regularly for hearing and the solicitor had indicated his readiness to offer evidence of defendant Brock's failure to appear, the court asked counsel for defendant and his surety whether these facts were controverted, to which counsel replied, in substance, that they were relying on defendant's plea of former jeopardy.

Thus it appears that the material facts which the court found and upon which judgment was rendered were not controverted. Hearing evidence thereon was waived. The record before the Presiding Judge showed that the defendant Brock had been duly called and failed to answer, that judgment nisi had been entered, and capias ordered at November Special Term 1950.

Furthermore, appellants' general exception 'to the foregoing findings of fact' failed to point any specific finding to which exception was taken, and may be regarded as a broadside exception. 'Such exception presents nothing for review.' Hoover v. Crotts, 232 N.C. 617, 61 S.E.2d 705, 706. 'It is insufficient to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings, or any one, or more of them.' Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E.2d 916, 919.

The fact that a mistrial was ordered and the case continued at October Term 1949, State v. Brock, N.C., 67 S.E.2d 282, did not relieve the defendant or his surety from his obligation to appear at a later term while the case was still pending. State v. Eure, 172 N.C. 874, 89 S.E. 788. Nor would the subsequent arrest of Brock on a capias and the filing of a new bond relieve the surety. Tar Heel Bond Co. v. Krider, 218 N.C. 361, 11 S.E.2d 291.

Judgment affirmed.

VALENTINE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.