Case ID: sw2d_126/html/0657-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HAWKINS, Judge. CHRISTIAN, Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARK et al. v. STATE.
    No. 20108.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Feb. 22, 1939.
    Rehearing Denied April 12, 1939.
    John L. Poulter, of Fort Worth, for appellants.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.
   HAWKINS, Judge.

On May 20, 1936, an indictment against C. A. Mark charging him with fraudulently selling mortgaged property was returned-into the Criminal District Court of Tar-rant County, Texas. On the 15th day of June, 1936, Mark executed his appearance bond to said court in the sum of one thousand dollars with H. G. Tankersley and. J. J. Williams as sureties- Mark’s case-was called for trial on the 15th day of October, 1936. He failed to appear. His-bond was forfeited and judgment nisi entered against him and said sureties. Upon proper notice said judgment nisi was made final on May 28, 1938, from which judgment Tankersley and Williams bring, this appeal.

Appellants’ main contention is that the forfeiture was not taken as the law directs in that they claim Mark’s name was not called “at the court house door”. Art. 425,. C.C.P. At the trial to determine whether the judgment nisi should be rtiade final evidence was heard and the same facts established as in case No. 20109, Caldwell et al. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 126 S.W.2d 654, this day decided. Indeed, the statement of facts in the present case appears to be a carbon copy of the one found in the case-mentioned. The reasons given for affirmance of the judgment in said cause No. 20109 lead to the same order in the present case.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellants’ Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

After carefully re-examining the record in the light of appellants’. motion for rehearing, we are constrained to adhere to the conclusion expressed in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

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.