TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Sureties

UNITED STATES v. GOLDSTEIN'S SURETIES

United States v. Sureties, 25 F. Cas. 1354 (1871)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kansas · Historical Federal Courts
Decided
July 1, 1871
Judges
Dillon, Miller
Citations
25 F. Cas. 13541 Dill. 413
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Case No. 15,226. Recognizance—Requisites of Validity. Bonds to secure the appearance of a person charged with crime must be taken and executed in pursuance of the order of the proper court or officer; and where, in distinct offences, two. bonds, in different sums, were required, one boud for the aggregate amount was adjudged to impose no liability upon the sureties. [Cited in U. S. v. Horton. Case No. 15.31)3: U. S. v. Hudson. 65 Fed. 73.] [Cited in Roberts v. State. 34 Kan. 151. s Pae. 246.]
Summary
A United States commissioner, on proper complaint and proceedings before him. required a person charged with receiving stolen property of the United States, knowing it to be stolen, to give bail in the sum of $500 to appear at the next term, and the commissioner at the same time, on another charge of like-nature, required the same person to give bail in the sum of $200 to appear at the next term,. &c.; and one bond for $700 was taken; and the principal cognizor having failed to appear, it was declared forfeited. This proceeding; is a scire facias against the sureties.

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

Opinion of the Court — Dillon

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

DILLON, Circuit Judge.

Bonds or recognizances of this character are binding only when taken in pursuance of law and the order-of a competent court or officer. No order was made authorizing a single bond for $700. and the bond taken was a substantial departure-from the bonds required by the commissioner, and was not therefore obligatory on the sure *1355 ties. State v. Buffum. 2 Fost. (N. H.) 267. Judgment accordingly.

Recognizance 10 secure appearance on criminal charge binding only when in pursuance of order of proper officer. Cited U. S. v. Horton [Case No. 15,393].

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1885–1886: 11893–1894: 11895–1896: 11905–1906: 21913–1914: 11919–1920: 118852026peak 1905 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Roberts v. State34 Kan. 151 (1885)
  2. State v. Hines1913 OK 234, 131 P. 688
  3. United States v. Hudson65 F. 68 (W.D. Ark. 1894)
  4. United States v. Sauer73 F. 671 (W.D. Tex. 1896)
  5. City & County of San Francisco v. Hartnett82 P. 1064 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
  6. County of Merced v. Shaffer180 P. 342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

Most recent

  1. County of Merced v. Shaffer180 P. 342 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)
  2. State v. Hines1913 OK 234, 131 P. 688
  3. City & County of San Francisco v. Hartnett82 P. 1064 (Cal. Ct. App. 1905)
  4. Territory of Oklahoma ex rel. Thacker v. Woodring1905 OK 60, 82 P. 572
  5. United States v. Sauer73 F. 671 (W.D. Tex. 1896)
  6. United States v. Hudson65 F. 68 (W.D. Ark. 1894)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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