Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

24 Tex. 544

Wilcox v. State

Texas Supreme Court

Decided July 1, 1859

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1859-07-01

Tried below before the Hon. Thomas J. Devine. This was an action by scire facias, instituted by the State, to recover of John Wilcox, and from the estate of John S. M‘Donald, deceased, the sum of $500, the amount of a recognisance entered into by H. A. Mann, as principal, and Wilcox and M‘Donald, as sureties, on an indictment against Mann, for grand larceny.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1950

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Roberts, J.

¶1It is objected, that the recognisance in this case is more onerous than the law requires. • It is presumed/ that reference is made to the terms of the recognisance, which requires the defendant to appear from day to day, and from term to term. The bail bond prescribed in the statute required the defendant to appear at the “ next term, then and there .to answer the charges exhibited against him, and that he will not depart therefrom, without the leave of the court.” (Hart. Dig., Art. 2889.) The object of this was to secure his appearance in.court. The court could then, if the case was not tried, require him to enter into a recognisance, to appear from term to term, as was done in this case. And such was, as it is believed, the correct practice, under the statute referred to. The terms, that' he shall “ abide such judgment, sentence, or decree as may be rendered against him in said cause,” are simply to insure his attendance upon the court, so as to submit himself to its final judgment.

¶2It is objected that defendant was indicted by the name of -Mann, and entered into a recognisance by the name of H. A. Mann. This variance was pleaded on the trial, and the issue was submitted to the jury, whether or not the person indicted was the person recognised; and they found that he was the same. The defendants presented this issue, and it was found against them, and no error is perceived in the action of the court in reference to it.

¶3It is contended, that the judgment is erroneous, because it is *547rendered generally against the administrator and administratrix of the estate of one of the securities. The court does not order execution to issue against any of the defendants, or otherwise direct the mode of its enforcement. As to the administrator and administratrix, this is in violation of the statute which requires that the judgment shall be paid in the due course of administration,” and that no execution shall issue thereon against them. (O. & W. Dig. 130, "Art. 503.) The judgment will therefore be reversed and rendered in this court in proper form.

¶4Reversed and rendered.

/24/tex/544 · .json · Public domain