State v. Schmidt

Decided April 15, 1858

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 1858-04-15

<p>When after the forfeiture of an appearance bond and an appeal from the judgment of forfeiture, it appeared by a supplemental record that the accused had been tried, convicted and sentenced under the charge for -which he gave the bond to appear—Held: that the appellate court was without original jurisdiction to try the question whether satisfaction of the bond should be ontered on account of such new facts.</p> <p>A mere surrender, or a new arrest of the prisoner at a time subsequent to that when the bond was forfeited, does not satisfy the judgment.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 1971

5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Spoffoed, J.

¶1This case differs from that of the State v. Franh Brown et al, just decided, in one particular.

¶2A supplemental record has been filed by consent, which shows that, since the appeal was filed, the defendant, Julius Schmidt, has been tried, convicted and sentenced under the charge for which he gave bond to appear. It is not proved by the record that he has complied with the sentence.

¶3Whether he has or not, this court is without original jurisdiction to try the question whether satisfaction of the bond should be entered on account of these new facts.

¶4The only question is : “Was the judgment appealed from right upon the facts in evidence at the time of its rendition ? Por the reasons already given in the case of Brown, we think it was.

¶5A mere surrender, or a new arrest of the prisoner, at a term subsequent to that when the bond was forfeited, does not satisfy the judgment.

¶6Judgment affirmed.