State v. Brown, 361.
| Decision Date | 30 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 361.,361. |
| Citation | 218 N.C. 368,11 S.E.2d 294 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. BROWN et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Rowan County; F. D. Phillips, Judge.
Proceeding on an appearance bond by the State against Wadis Brown and another. From an adverse judgment, the surety Tar Heel Bond Company appeals.
Affirmed.
Proceeding on appearance bond.
One Wadis Brown having been arrested on a charge of reckless driving, on 17 August, 1937, executed his appearance bond returnable to the September Term, 1939, Rowan Superior Court, with the respondent as surety thereon. The case was called for trial at the February Term, 1940, at which time the defendant entered a plea to an offense less than that charged in the warrant and judgment was suspended upon condition that the defendant pay the cost. The defendant was given by the Court until Monday of the second week in which to pay the cost. On Monday of the second week the defendant was duly called and failed to answer. Thereupon, judgment nisi was entered and sci fa and capias was ordered. The sci fa was served upon the surety but not upon the principal. The surety, in response to the sci fa served, appeared and answered. When the matter was heard upon the return of the sci fa, after consideration of respondent's answer, judgment absolute was entered. Respondent excepted and appealed.
T. G. Furr, of Salisbury, Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen, and George B. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
C. P. Barringer, of Salisbury, for respondent, appellant.
The appellant contends that it was error for the Court to enter judgment absolute on the sci fa until such sci fa had been served on the principal and that, therefore, the judgment pronounced is voidable and unenforcible. The questionthus sought to be presented is decided by this Court in Tar Heel Bond Co. v. Krider, Sheriff, 11 S.E.2d 291. The decision in that case is controlling. As the defendant Brown was permitted to remain at large under the bond until the second Monday of the Court his failure to appear constitutes a forfeiture thereof. State v. Staley, 200 N.C. 385, 157 S.E. 25.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tar Heel Bond Co v. Krider
-
Tar Heel Bond Co. v. Krider
...11 S.E.2d 291 218 N.C. 361 TAR HEEL BOND CO. v. KRIDER, Sheriff. No. 380.Supreme Court of North CarolinaOctober 30, 1940 ... relief as may induce the court to remit or mitigate the ... forfeiture. State v. Mills, 19 N.C. 552 ... The ... remedy upon a forfeited bond is summary in ... ...
-
State v. Dew, 75
...is not a prerequisite to a judgment absolute against the surety. Tar Heel Bond Co. v. Krider, 218 N.C. 361, 11 S.E.2d 291; State v. Brown, 218 N.C. 368, 11 S.E.2d 294. The scire facias served on the appellant gave it ample notice that it was required to appear on the first day of the May Te......
-
State v. Jenkins, 76
...does not, ipso facto, discharge the original forfeiture, Tar Heel Bond Co. v. Krider, 218 N.C. 361, 11 S.E.2d 291; State v. Brown, 218 N.C. 368, 11 S.E.2d 294, the door is still open to the to appeal to the court for a modification of the judgment absolute for the reason the defendant has b......