Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

22 N.H. 267

State v. Buffum

Superior Court of New Hampshire

Decided July 15, 1851

Superior Court of New Hampshire · decided 1851-07-15

Scire Facias. On the 24th day of July, 1850, Prelate M. Robinson, having been arrested upon a complaint against him for larceny, was brought before Calvin Burnap, a Justice of the Peace for this county, and was ordered to recognize in the sum of four hundred dollars, with two sufficient sureties in the sum of two hundred dollars each, for his appearance at the Court of Common Pleas for this county, to be held on the second Tuesday of September next ensuing.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1885

3 state decisions

101851186018701880decided

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 →

Gilchrist, C. J.

¶1The order of the magistrate in this case having been, that Robinson should recognize in the sum of four hundred dollars, with two sureties in the sum of two hundred dollars each, he gave his own recognizance, but furnished ten sureties in the sum of forty dollars each.

¶2Upon what ground can any one of these sureties be holden ? They are liable, in any case, only upon the ground that they have entered into a recognizance ordered by a tribunal having authority to act in the premises. If this be a compliance with the order of the magistrate, it would be difficult to say where the *269line should be drawn. It would seem, in any case, to’be sufficient if the prisoner furnished sufficient sureties for his appearance, whether they were holden for the sum, or in the manner specified in the order of the magistrate. If any attention whatever is to be paid to the terms of the order, these sureties cannot be holden; for they do not come at all within it. It is sufficient that they have not recognized according to the order, and a compliance with the order is the only ground upon which the validity of the recognizance can be placed. They must be considered--as having entered into no recognizance as ordered by the magistrate, and that is a sufficient answer to this process.

¶3Judgment for the defendant.

/22/nh/267 · .json · Public domain