State v. Stanley
| Decision Date | 08 March 1919 |
| Docket Number | 22,198 |
| Citation | 179 P. 361,104 Kan. 475 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. F. H. STANLEY, S.W. ECKLES and TOM NORTHUP, Appellees |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1919.
Appeal from Gove district court; JACOB C. RUPPENTHAL, judge.
Judgment affirmed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE--Assault by Principal in Another State--Bond Not Violated. A bond, given under section 9 of the code of criminal procedure, is not violated by the principal killing, in another state, the person toward whom the principal was particularly bound to keep the peace.
2. SAME--Suicide of Principal--Relieves Sureties of Liability. The suicide of the principal in a bond to keep the peace committed before the term of the district court next after giving the bond, relieves the sureties from liability for the principal's failure to appear at that term of court.
G. A. Spencer, A. R. Buzick, jr., both of Salina, and E. F. Beckner, of Gove, for the appellant.
R. W. Thompson, of Gove, for the appellees.
The plaintiff seeks to recover on a peace bond given by the defendants on May 18, 1917, under section 9 of the code of criminal procedure, conditioned that Joe Napier should "keep the peace toward all the people of the state of Kansas and Pearl Rash more particularly and appear at the next regular term of the district court of Gove county, Kansas." The court sustained a demurrer to the petition, and the plaintiff appeals.
The petition discloses that on July 13, 1917, Napier killed Pearl Rash in Oklahoma and then committed suicide, and that at the next term of court, on October 17, 1917, the bond was declared forfeited.
1. The plaintiff contends that Joe Napier violated the terms of his bond by killing Pearl Rash in Oklahoma. Where was Napier to keep the peace toward Pearl Rash? Necessarily in the state of Kansas. The laws of this state cannot govern the conduct of those who are in another state. The authority of the state ends at the state line. No law of this state has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits of the state. ( Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113, 163, 40 L.Ed. 95, 16 S.Ct. 139; 5 R. C. L. 908; 12 C. J. 438; Story on Conflict of Laws, § 7.) Numerous other authorities might be cited. In re Martin, 80 Kan. 245, 101 P. 1006, gives some support to the rule. The law authorizing magistrates to require bonds to keep the peace operates exclusively within the state, and controls the conduct of those who give the bonds while they are in the state, and at no other place. When Napier killed Pearl Rash, if he committed a breach of the peace, it was not against the state of Kansas, but against the state of Oklahoma. The bond that he had given did not cover his actions in that state.
Section 7926 of the General Statutes of 1915 reads:
"No recognizance to keep the peace shall be deemed to be broken, except in the case of a failure to appear, as hereinbefore provided, unless the principal in such recognizance be convicted of some offense amounting, in judgment of law, to a breach of such recognizance."
The petition does not disclose that Joe Napier was convicted of any offense involving a breach of the peace toward Pearl Rash.
2. The state argues that the failure of Napier to appear at the October term of the district court in Gove county violated the terms of the bond and justified a forfeiture thereof; and that, as a consequence, the sureties, the defendants in this action, are liable; but the defendants contend that they are excused from liability by the death of their principal. In 3 Ruling Case Law, page 55, the author says:
"Where the principal in a bail bond dies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Steele v. Stevenson
-
People v. Parkin
...dies before the day of performance that bail is exonerated. Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U. S. (16 Wall.) 366, 369,21 L. Ed. 287;State v. Stanley, 104 Kan. 475, 179 P. 361. A forfeiture has not, as a rule, been remitted where the accused was not in custody and produced. People v. Heit, 152 App. Di......
-
State v. Waters
... ... We ... held in State v. Montague, supra, that the motion to set ... aside the forfeiture was a special proceeding and that a ... denial of it was a final order from which an appeal could be ... Defendant ... cites and relies on State v. Stanley, 104 Kan. 475, ... 179 P. 361. In that case the defendant in a criminal case had ... committed suicide before the time for him to appear as ... provided in his bond. We held that committing suicide was a ... satisfactory excuse ... [162 ... Kan. 623] Defendant also relies upon what ... ...
-
State v. Davis
...these defendants could not be held liable for the failure to produce Spahr, even though his death was a suicide. State v. Stanley, 1919, 104 Kan. 475, 179 P. 361; People v. Wissig, 1875, 7 Daly, N.Y., 23. But does such a rule apply where there are two principals and only one is Ordinarily, ......