State v. Horn
| Citation | 70 Mo. 466 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. HORN et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1879 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court.--HON. J. C. ANDERSON, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Scire facias on a recognizance by Horn, as principal, and Cherry, as surety. The answer of Cherry alleged in substance that Horn was prevented from fulfilling and performing the condition of the recognizance by reason of his arrest and confinement in jail by one Roe, United States marshal for the southern district of Illinois, about ten days before the time for his appearance before the court under the terms of said recognizance; * * that he was detained in the custody of said officer from the time of his arrest until his trial, when he was convicted, * * and was sentenced to the penitentiary of the State of Illinois for the term of seven years; that he was at the time of filing the answer confined in the State prison of Illinois, at Joliet, under said sentence serving out the time of the same. To this answer there was a general demurrer, which was sustained, and final judgment was entered for the State, from which Cherry appealed.
J. L. Smith, Attorney-General, for the State.
This was a recognizance taken by the State against Horn and Cherry, in which Cherry obliged himself in a penalty that he would be responsible for Horn's appearance to answer an indictment against him. The defense was that Horn was prevented from performing the conditions of the recognizance by reason of his arrest in Illinois and his trial and conviction and sentence to the penitentiary of that State. This defense was held invalid. This was so held, in accordance with the opinion of the circuit court of the United States in United States v. Van Fossen, 1 Dill. C. C. 406, and of the Supreme Courts of Tennessee in Devine v. The State, 5 Sneed 623, and of Connecticut in Taintor v. Taylor, 36 Conn. 242. As we concur in these opinions it is unnecessary to examine the questions decided and therefore affirm the judgment. The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wynne, 40111.
...Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 377, 21 L. Ed. 287; Taylor v. Taintor, 36 Conn. 242; State v. Reed, 127 Wash. 166, 219 Pac. 833; State v. Horn, 70 Mo. 466; Beck v. Commonwealth, 254 Ky. 160, 71 S.W. (2d) 1; Briggs v. Commonwealth, 185 Ky. 340, 214 S.W. 975, 8 A.L.R. 363; Merrick v. Vaucher......
-
State v. Wynne
...violation of its laws, the sureties are not discharged. [6 Am. Jur. 103, Sec. 140; 8 C.J.S. 149, Sec. 77; Annotation 26 A.L.R. 412; State v. Horn, 70 Mo. 466; State v. Adank, Sup.), 256 S.W. 768.] If the positive act of another state, which prevents the return of the principal, will not rel......
-
State v. Haverstick
...for $2,500. Defendant Haverstick's incarceration in the penitentiary in Arkansas of course constituted no defense to the action. State v. Horn, 70 Mo. 466. Defendant Carolina Casualty Insurance Company thereafter filed a motion styled: 'Separate motion of defendant Carolina Casualty Insuran......
-
State v. Altone
...jurisdiction for an offense committed there. Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 21 L.Ed. 287; Cain v. State, 55 Ala. 170; State v. Horn, 70 Mo. 466, 35 Am.Rep. 437; King v. State, 18 Neb. 375, 25 N.W. 519; State v. Eller, 1940, 218 N.C. 365, 11 S.E.2d 295; Ricks v. State, 1941, 189 Okl. 598, ......