¶1This was a recognizance taken, by the *467State against Horn and Cherry, in which Cherry obliged himself- in a penalty that he would be -responsible for Horn’s appearance to answer an indictment against him. The defense was that Horn was prevented from performing the conditions of the recognizance by reason of his arrest in Illinois and his trial and conviction and sentence to the penitentiary of that State. This defense was held invalid. This was so held, in accordance with the'opinion of the circuit court of the United States in United Stales v. Van Fossen, 1 Dill. C. C. 406, and of the Supreme Courts of Tennessee in Devine v. The State, 5 Sneed 623, and of Connecticut in Taintor v. Taylor, 36 Conn. 242. As we concur in these opinions it is unnecessary to examine the questions decided and therefore affirm the judgment.
70 Mo. 466
State v. Horn
Decided October 15, 1879
Supreme Court of Missouri · decided 1879-10-15
— HoN. J. C. Anderson, Judge. Scire-facias on a recognizance by Horn, as principal, and Cherry, as surety.
Relies on Taintor v. Taylor
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed · Decided 1879-10-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1973
1 federal appellate · 7 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 →