United States v. Lee
| Decision Date | 14 May 1909 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. LEE. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Thos H. Darby, Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty., for the government.
E. C Turner and T. J. Abernathy, for defendant.
Arthur I. Vorys, for Surety Co.
SATER District Judge (after stating the facts as above).
In the theory of the law, by a recognizance of bail in a criminal action, the accused is committed to the custody of the sureties as to jailers of his own choosing, and is so far placed in their power that they may at any time arrest him upon the recognizance and surrender him to the court, and are bound, at their peril, to see that he obeys the court's order. Reese v. U.S., 9 Wall. 13, 19 L.Ed. 541; Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 21 L.Ed. 287; section 1018, Rev. St. (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 719). The purpose of a recognizance is not to enrich the treasury, but to serve the convenience of the party accused but not convicted, without interfering with or defeating the administration of justice. Sureties, therefore, should be persons of sufficient financial ability and of sufficient vigilance to secure the appearance and prevent the absconding of the accused. It is urged in argument that this case is distinguishable from United States v. Simmons (C.C.) 47 F. 575, in which a bail bond was refused on account of the sureties being indemnified by taking a bond from the accused and others. It is said that, the indemnitors in this case being third parties, the public will have the security of two persons instead of one, and that in view of the announcement in United States v. Greene (C.C.) 163 F. 442, the sureties should be accepted. The acceptance, as a surety on a criminal bond, of one who had been indemnified by a person other than the accused, was not before the court in that case, and the cases cited to sustain the text of 16 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 172, merely go to the point that a contract to indemnify a person on his becoming bail for a prisoner charged with a criminal offense is valid and enforceable if persons other than the prisoner are indemnitors. When indemnitors are not acting in good faith and their purpose is to substitute the recognizance and the indemnity for the person of the accused and thereby enable him to flee from justice, the court or committing magistrate should not accept the recognizance.
One of the proffered sureties declares that he will make no effort to produce the accused in court, should he abscond. The surety company will become such only if fully indemnified against loss. Strictly, this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Field
...its approval of a bond even though the financial standing of the bail is beyond question." To this point he cited United States v. Lee, D.C.S.D. Ohio, 170 F. 613, 614, where the court made a particularly strong statement as follows: "In the theory of the law, by a recognizance of bail in a ......
-
Com. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co.
...confinement while he awaits disposition of his case. United States v. Kirkman, 426 F.2d 747, 752 (4th Cir. 1970). United States v. Lee, 170 F. 613, 614, (S.D.Ohio, 1909). People v. Pugh, 9 Cal.App.3d 241, 250, 88 Cal.Rptr. 110 In assuming the position of bail, the surety enters into a contr......
-
State v. Nugent
...524, 547, 72 S.Ct. 525, 96 L.Ed. 547 (1952); Reese v. United States, 76 U.S. [9 Wall.] 13, 21, 19 L.Ed. 541 (1869); United States v. Lee, 170 F. 613, 614 (S.D.Ohio 1909). "The right of the bail over his principal, whether exercised personally or by delegation, is too well established to req......
-
Field v. United States
...13, 19 L.Ed. 541; Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 21 L.Ed. 287; Cosgrove v. Winney, 174 U.S. 64, 19 S.Ct. 598, 43 L.Ed. 897; United States v. Lee, D.C., 170 F. 613; United States v. Ryder, 110 U.S. 729, 4 S.Ct. 196, 28 L.Ed. 3 Cases cited by movants to support their theory that the suretie......