Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

76 Ala. 101

Kilgrow v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided December 15, 1884

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1884-12-15

Tried before the Hon. Jno. P. Hubbard. The record in this case sets out, 1st, a bond executed by Henry Morrison as principal, and B. F. Kilgrow and M. S. Barganier as his sureties, conditioned for the appearance of said Morrison at the next term of the Circuit Court of Butler, “ and from term to term thereafter until discharged by law, to answer indictment preferred against him in said court for burglary which bond is in the penalty of $400, and was approved by the sheriff…

Relies on Keipp v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1884-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1984

6 state decisions

1018841890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

SOMEBYILLE, J.

¶1— Sections 4863-4868 of the present Code prescribe the form of procedure for the enforcement of forfeitures of undertakings of bail in criminal cases. A condi-, tional judgment is authorized to be taken, under certain circumstances, “ against the parties to the undertaking,” the form of which is given ; and this may be made final by notice of its rendition to each of the defendants, or two returns of “ not found ” by the sheriff, which are made equivalent to personal service. — bode, 1876, §§ 4866-67. If these sections stood alone, we would be disposed to construe them to authorize only joint proceedings against all of the obligors to the undertaking of bail. Being purely statutory in their origin, and summary in their character, they would be subject to a strict construction.

¶2We are of opinion, however, that the effect of section 4852 of the Code, which is a part of the same subject-matter, and in juxtaposition as a part of the same context, materially modifies this construction. This section provides that “ the undertaking of bail binds the parties thereto jointly and severally ” for the appearance of the defendant, which is the essence of every such undertaking under our statute. The purpose and effect of this declaration, we think, is to authorize the taking of forfeitures against any one or more of the obligors, including or excluding the principal. — Keipp v. The State, 49 Ala. 337. It was not-error, therefore, to allow judgment to be taken against the sureties, without including the defendant himself, for whose failure to answer the forfeiture was taken.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/76/ala/101 · .json · Public domain