Vincent v. Commonwealth

Decided June 11, 1867

Court of Appeals of Kentucky · decided 1867-06-11

<p>Bail Bond —■ Forfeiture —■ Defense.</p> <p>The fact that the defendant was prevented by military power, against his will, from appearing before the adjudged forfeiture, presents a good defense and it was error to sustain a demurrer to the answer.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1919

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Construed fairly — the answer prima facie imparts that the principal in the recognizance was not delinquent at the term at which' he was recognized to appear, but during that term was forced by military power against his will from Kentucky into the Confederate lines, and in like manner was prevented from appearing or being surrendered by the appellant as his bail before the adjudged forfeiture. And thus interpreted, the answer presents a good defense to scire facias and the circuit court erred in sustaining the demurrer and adjudging the penalty against the appellant.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Briggs v. Commonwealth

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-06-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Opinion of the Court by

Judge Bobertson:

¶2Construed fairly — the answer prima facie imparts that the principal in the recognizance was not delinquent at the term at which he was recognized to appear but during that term was forced by military power against his will from Kentucky into the Confederate lines, and in like manner was prevented from appearing or being surrendered by the appellant as his bail before the adjudged forfeiture. And thus interpreted, the answer presents a good defense to scire facias and the Circuit Court erred in sustaining the demurrer and adjudging the penalty against the appellant.

¶3Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to overrule the demurrer. ■