Marshall v. State
Tom Marshall v. the State
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
DAVIDSON, Presiding Judge.
Appellant was convicted in the justice court, and prosecuted his appeal to the criminal district court. Motion" was made by the district attorney to dismiss the appeal, because the bond was not in compliance with the statute. The statute requires the party prosecuting such appeal to enter into bond conditioned, among other things, that he will make his personal appearance before the “next term” of the court to which he prosecutes his appeal. The bond executed was conditioned that he make his personal’appearance “at the present regular term,” instead of “at the next regular term.” The motion to dismiss was sustained. The case of Fentress v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 79, is in point and decisive of this question against appellant. Dn the authority of that case, the judgment herein is affirmed.
Affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.