State v. Hart

• Citation: 227 N.W. 650,209 Iowa 119
• Decision Date: 21 November 1929
• Docket Number: 39781
• Parties: STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. GEORGE HART, Appellee, et al., Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

227 N.W. 650

209 Iowa 119

STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. GEORGE HART, Appellee, et al., Appellant

No. 39781

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

November 21, 1929

Appeal from Plymouth District Court.--C. C. BRADLEY, Judge.

Application for an order to refund a certain amount which had been deposited as a cash bond, and which had been applied to the payment of costs in a criminal case.

Affirmed.

Kass Zink & Kass, for appellant.

John Fletcher, Attorney-general, and George W. Sturges, County Attorney, for State of Iowa, appellee.

FAVILLE J. ALBERT, C. J., and EVANS, DE GRAFF, and KINDIG, JJ concur.

OPINION

FAVILLE, J.

I.

One George Hart was indicted in Plymouth County. His appearance bond was fixed at the sum of $ 2,500. The appellant is the father of the said George, and offered to execute an appearance bond for the said George. The clerk of the court objected to accepting the appellant as surety on said appearance bond. Finally an arrangement was made among all of the parties whereby the appellant turned over to the clerk a certificate of deposit in the said sum of $ 2,500, said certificate being issued by the First National Bank of Le Mars, and made payable to the appellant, who duly indorsed the same and delivered it to the clerk as a cash bail. The clerk informed the appellant that he would hold the same as though the said George had deposited the money as a cash bond, and that, unless objection was made to the said certificate of deposit by state checkers, he would allow it to remain in that form, in order that the appellant might get the benefit of the interest which would accrue thereon. At the end of a six months' period, the interest which had accrued on the certificate of deposit was credited to the appellant at the said bank, and a new certificate of deposit in the said sum of $ 2,500 was issued, and delivered to the clerk. This certificate was made payable to the appellant or said clerk. Later on, the clerk indorsed said certificate of deposit and received the money thereon. The defendant in said criminal action in due time appeared for trial in said action, and was convicted of the crime with which he was charged, and sentenced to the penitentiary, and judgment was entered against the said defendant in said criminal action for the costs of said action. The court made the further order that:

"The clerk of said court is hereby directed to apply the bail money deposited by defendant in satisfaction of the costs of this action, and to refund the surplus to defendant's bondsman, John R. Hart, to whom defendant states it belongs."

Thereupon the clerk deducted the sum of $ 367.20 costs, and delivered the balance of said $ 2,500 to the appellant. This action involves solely the question of the right of the retention of the said sum in satisfaction of said judgment for costs against the defendant in the criminal action.

Section 13627, Code, 1927, is as follows:

"The defendant, at any time after an order admitting him to bail, instead of giving bail, may deposit with the clerk of the district court to which the undertaking is required to be sent, the sum mentioned in the order, and, upon delivering to the officer in whose custody he is, a certificate under seal from said clerk of the deposit, he must be discharged from custody."

Section 13630 of the Code is as follows:

"When money has been deposited by the defendant, if it remain on deposit at the time of a judgment against him, the clerk, under the direction of the court, shall apply the money in satisfaction of so much of the judgment as requires the payment of money, and shall refund the surplus, if any, to him, unless an appeal be taken to the Supreme Court, and bail put in, in which case the deposit shall be returned to the defendant."

It is argued that the delivery of the certificate of deposit to the clerk was not a deposit of "money," and therefore does not come within the terms and provisions of the statute. There is no question but that the appellant had deposited the money represented by the certificate of deposit in the bank at Le Mars. The certificate of deposit was duly indorsed by appellant to the clerk of the court. The clerk could have drawn the actual money on said certificate of deposit when it was delivered to him by the appellant. No other person could have drawn it. For the accommodation of the appellant in the matter of securing interest, the clerk agreed with the appellant to let the money remain in said bank under said certificate of deposit, in lieu of presenting the certificate of deposit at the time and withdrawing the cash thereon. All the parties treated the transaction with the same force and effect as though the appellant had brought the actual cash to the clerk and deposited it with him as bail. The indorsed certificate of deposit gave the clerk the power to immediately withdraw the actual cash from the bank and to...