Saffold v. State

Decided April 15, 1883

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1883-04-15

Hon. J. S. Hamm, Judge. At the October term, 1876, of the Circuit Court of Harrison County, Washington House, having been indicted for larceny, entered into a recognizance with K. C. Saffold as surety to appear at the April, 1877, term of the court. House failing to appear at the latter term a judgment nisi was taken against both him and Saffold on the recognizance, and a writ of scire facias was issued to both.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1884

1 state decisions

Relies on Ditto v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Campbell, C. J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2After judgment by default on the scire facias upon a recognizance it is not admissible to notice a variance between the recognizance and scire facias. Ditto v. The State, 30 Miss. 126.

¶3It is not a valid objection to a judgment on a recognizance against a surety that the principal has not been served with scire facias, or that there have not been two returns of “ not found ” as to him. Sect. 3043 of the Code makes two returns of “ not found,” equal to service of scire facias in such case, but does not make service or such return as to all a prerequisite of judgment final against those who are served. Chinn v. The Commonwealth, 5 J. J. Marsh. 29 ; Luckett v. Austin, 4 Bibb. 181; Bruce v. Colgan, 2 Litt. 286 ; Sans v. The People, 3 Gilm. 327.

¶4Judgment affirmed.