State v. . Houston

Decided January 5, 1876

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1876-01-05

Scxee Facias, on a forfeited recognizance, heard before Judge Solum ok. at Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of MeckleNbubg county. The defendant Houston had been indicted for foi’gery, and ¡aid was in custody when, upon his own affidavit, the case was continued. The court, after such continuance, made an order to discharge him from custody, upon Iris entering into recognizance with sureties, in the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, for his appearance at the next term.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1925

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1876-01-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Reads, J.

¶1 It was competent for his Honor to authorize the sheriff or other person, to take the recognizance of the defendants for the appearance of the principal defendant at the next term, to answer the charge of the State against him, his Honor having fixed the amount of the recognizance. And although the recognizance authorized to be taken was put in flie form of a bond with conditions, signed and sealed by the defendants, yet it is valid as a recognizance.

¶2 The taking of a recognizance consists in making and attesting a memorandum of the acknowledgment of a debt due the State, and of the conditions on which it is to be defeated. State v. Edney, 2 Winst., 71.

¶3 There is no error. Let this be certified.

¶4 Pee Cdkiam. Judement affirmed.