Case ID: sw_276/html/0274-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BAKER, J. BAKER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WHITE et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 8887.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    April 15, 1925.
    Reinstated Oct. 14, 1925.)
    1. Bail &wkey;>94 — Appeals in forfeited bail cases governed by law pertaining to civil matters.
    Appeals in forfeited bail cases are governed by law pertaining to civil matters.
    2. Bail <&wkey;94 — Appeal in forfeited bail case dismissed, where record fails to show filing of briefs.
    Appeal in forfeited bail case will be dismissed, where record fails to show any filing of briefs in lower court or reviewing tribunal.
    On Rehearing.
    3. Bail <&wkey;93 — state held not entitled to judgment of forfeiture of recognizance without introducing the recognizance.
    State held not entitled to judgment forfeiting recognizance as against sureties entering a general denial, based on scire facias and judgment nisi, without offering in evidence the recognizance.
    Commissioners’ Decision.
    Appeal from Tarrant County Court, at Daw; P. W. Seward, Judge.
    Proceeding by the State to forfeit a recognizance against Charles White and others. Prom judgment of forfeiture, defendants appeal.
    Reversed.
    . Mays & Mays, of Port Worth, for appellants.
    Tom Garrard, State’s Atty., and Grover C. Morris, Asst. State’s Atty., both of Austin, for the State.
   BAKER, J.

This is an appeal from a final judgment upon a forfeiture of bail from the county court at law of Tarrant county.

. The state’s attorney with this court has filed a motion in this case to dismiss same on account of the failure upon the part of appellants to file briefs in the trial court and in this court,.as required by law in civil cases. r, ,

In forfeited bail cases, with reference to preparing and appealing such eases, the law pertaining to civil, matters prevails. The record in this case fails to show any filing of briefs in the lower court or in this court, and we are of the opinion that the motion is well taken. This court, in the eases of Rudy v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 568, 191 S. W. 698, and Thodberg v. State, 81 Tex. Cr. R. 225, 194 S. W. 1108, held that failure to file briefs was ground for dismissal.

The state’s motion is therefore granted, and this appeal dismissed.

PER CURIAM. 'The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Rehearing.

BAKER, J.

This case was dismissed at last term of this court on account of the recqrd failing to show appellants filed briefs in the trial court and in this court as required by law, and, upon proper showing made of such filing, the judgment of dismissal is set aside, and the case will now be considered upon its merits, as shown in the opinion of dismissal.

This is an appeal from a final judgment upon a forfeiture of a recognizance. The record discloses that, in answer to scire facias, the sureties, appellants, filed their answer embracing a general denial, and upon the trial for final judgment the state offered in evidence the scire facias and judgment nisi, and rested the ease without further evidence, whereupon the court entered final judgment for the sum of $500 against the principal and sureties in the recognizance, and from which said appellants appealed and insist, without the introduction of said recognizance, the evidence is wholly insufficient to support the final judgment. We are of the opinion that the contention of appellants is correct, and the law requires the introduction of said recognizance in such cases. In Hester v. State, 15 Tex. App. 418, the court stated:

“The state must meet this denial by producing the bond in evidence, just as the plaintiff is required to produce his promissory note where the general denial is pleaded to an action upon it”—citing Houston et al. v. State, 13 Tex. App. 560.

In Martin et al. v. State, 16 Tex. App. 265, it is stated it was necessary to show the recognizance and judgment nisi to entitle the state to a judgment. In Baker et al. v. State, 21 Tex. App. 359, 17 S. W. 256, Judge Hurt, in a forfeiture case, states:

“Appellants pleaded a general denial. This imposed upon the state the necessity of introducing in evidence the bond, it being the very foundation of the suit.”

The appellant cites us to the case of General Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. State, 73 Tex. Cr. R. 649, 165 S. W. 615, which we think is in point and which holds that it is necessary to introduce the bond in question in evidence. The failure of the state to introduce in evidence the recognizance, requires a reversal of this case. For the error above discussed we are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and it is accordingly so ordered.

PER CURIAM. The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court. 
      <&wkey;>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NüMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests-and Indexes