TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Carroll

The People v. Dennis Carroll

People v. Carroll, 6 N.W. 871 (Mich. 1880)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 13, 1880
Judges
Marston, Other
Citations
6 N.W. 87144 Mich. 3711880 Mich. LEXIS 568
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Alternative sentence— Validity of judgment disproved in action on recognizance. A sentence by a justice to pay a certain sum with costs of prosecution within twenty-four hours, or, in default of such payment, to be imprisoned for a specified period, is void. It seems that in an action on a recognizance given on appeal from a justice’s court, the surety therein is .not estopped from showing that there is no valid judgment in force against his principal. A recognizance on an appeal from a justice’s court cannot be said to have been given voluntarily when the judgment is void.
Summary
Error to Mason. Action on recognizance. Plaintiff brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Marston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Marston, C. J.

Daniel Shay was convicted in justice’s court and was sentenced to pay a fine of $50, besides the costs of prosecution, taxed at $12.50, within twenty-four hours, or in default of such payment that he be imprisoned, etc. Shay appealed to the circuit court. . The usual recognizance was given on such appeal. Default having been made in the circuit, this action was brought on the recognizance, and Carroll, one of the sureties, defends upon the ground that the judgment of the justice was not authorized by the statute, and could not be the foundation even of a valid bond on appeal. The judgment of the justice was clearly void under the decision in Brownbridge v. People 38 Mich. 753 , and we think the same may be taken advantage of in the present case. The recognizance given under such circumstances cannot be said to have been given voluntarily, and it might be dangerous to hold that the giving of a recognizance, as in this case, would estop the surety from showing that no valid judgment was in force under which the respondent could have been subjected to the payment of a fine or imprisonment.

We think the ruling was correct and that the judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1896: 11925: 118962026peak 1896 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wagner v. United States3 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1925)
  2. Roop v. State34 A. 885 (N.J. 1896)

Most recent

  1. Wagner v. United States3 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1925)
  2. Roop v. State34 A. 885 (N.J. 1896)

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.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Brownbridge v. People, 38 Mich. 751 (1878) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list