State v. Wilcox
| Citation | 59 Mo. 176 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. O. D. WILCOX, et al., Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 28 February 1875 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Holt Circuit Court.
Zook & Van Buskirk, with T. H. Parrish, for Appellants, cited in argument State vs. Randolph, 22 Mo., 478, and contended that State vs. Bailey, 35 Mo., 168, did not apply.
James Limbird, for Respondent, cited 7 Wend., 345.
Upon complaint duly filed, Wilcox, the defendant, was arrested and taken before a justice of the peace, for an assault to kill his wife. He entered into a recognizance, with the other defendants, to appear before the Circuit Court to answer any indictment which the grand jury might find against him. At the next succeeding term of the Circuit Court he was indicted by the grand jury, but he failed to appear and the recognizance was forfeited. A scire facias was then issued upon application of the State, and at the return term, the defendants interposed a demurrer which was overruled, and they elected to abide by the same. An appeal was taken from the judgment thereon.
The grounds relied upon for a reversal, are that the recognizance was not taken by a court or officer having the right to take the same, and that the recognizance was not signed by the defendants.
The first objection is based on the fact that the magistrate does not state in his transcript that the defendants waived an examination or that he gave judgment of committal against him. It is only necessary to refer to the cases of the State vs. Bailey, (35 Mo., 168) and the State vs. Rogers, (36 Mo., 138) to show that there is no force in this objection.
The second reason assigned is, however, more difficult. The justice certifies that the defendants appeared before him and acknowledged that they owed and stood indebted to the State in the sums therein specified; but they signed their names in the body of the bond, before the condition of the same and there were no signatures at the bottom.
The statute declares that: (Wagn. Stat., 1118, § 16.)
Undoubtedly the usual way of subscribing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North St. Louis Building And Loan Association v. Obert
...There is no doubt that a party may become bound in an instrument by signing it in any part, when he signs with that intention. [State v. Wilcox, 59 Mo. 176.] But the signature of Obert the connection above given shows that it was merely to attest as secretary the signature of the vicepresid......
-
The State v. Abel
...State v. Zwifle, 22 Mo. 467; State v. Randolph, 22 Mo. 474. The signatures to the bond are sufficient and it is properly taken. State v. Wilcox, 59 Mo. 176; State v. Stone, 106 Mo. 1; State Caldwell, 124 Mo. 509. The judge of a court under whose process the accused is in custody has the pow......
-
Robertson v. Robertson
...v. Coe, 51 Mo. 147; Laswell v. Church, 46 Mo. 279; 36 Cyc. 449; Moss v. Booth, 34 Mo. 316; Schmidt v. Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502; State v. Wilcox, 59 Mo. 176. J. Sturgis, J., concurs. Robertson, P. J., dissents in a separate opinion. OPINION FARRINGTON, J. This action is designed to accomplish ......
-
Robertson v. Robertson
...... affidavit. There is no rule of Jasper Circuit Court, nor is. there any statute of the State of Missouri requiring an. affidavit to be signed by the affiant. Bouvier Law Dictionary. -- Title: Affidavit; 1 Ency. Plead. & Prac. p. 313; ... signature." 36 Cyc. 449; Moss v. Booth, 34 Mo. 316; Schmidt v. Schmaelter, 45 Mo. 502; State v. Wilcox, 59 Mo. 176. "An instrument is signed where. the name appears at the bottom, top, middle or side of a. paper, if such name was intended as a ......