Case Name: Lawton v. The State
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1849-12
Citations: 5 Tex. 270
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lawton v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 135–136

Head Matter:
Lawton v. The State.
A bond taken by an officer of court, by authority oC law, and required to be returned into court, when so returned anrl placed upon the files of the court, is an obligation of record; is, in effect, a recognizance, and will support a scire facias.
A statutory bond, to be valid as such, must strictly conform, in every essential particular, to the statute. Therefore, when the statute required the bond to be payable to the State, and it was taken payable to the Governor, the bond was held to be invalid. (Note 49.)
Error from Red River. The plaintiff in error was surety for one Hilburn, upon a bond taken by the sheriff of Red River county, payable to “the Governor of the State of Texas and his successors in office,” conditioned for the appearance of the principal, Hilburn, at the next ensuing term of the District Court, to answer to an indictment. The bond appears to have been taken on the 4th and filed in the court on the 6th day of December, 1847. On the 20th of the same month, it being Uie Fall Term of the District Court, the defendant failing to appear, a judgment of forfeiture nisi was rendered against him and iiis surety Lawton. Thereupon a scire facias issued, returnable to the next term, was duly served, and the defendant, still failing to appear, a final judgment by default was taken against them. The defendant Lawton prosecuted this writ of error.
Morrill and Trimble, for plaintiff in error.
I. The bond being payable to the Governor instead of to the State, is void. (Acts of 1846, p. 267, sec. 9.)
II. The bond not being a matter of record, will not sustain a suit by scire facias. (Bac. Abr., Scire Facias.)
Hamilton, for defendant in error.
I. A bond taken to the Governor of tiie State inures to the benefit of the State, and may be recovered upon in the name of the State. (Treasurers v. Bates, 2 Rail. R., 362; 2 Rfott & McC., 108; 1 Kelly R., 574.)
Note 49. — Warren v. The State, 21 T,, 510; Patton v. The State, 35 T., 92.
II. Scire facias is a proper proceeding on forfeited bonds of recognizance. (2 Mass. R., 481; 12 Id., 1; 7 Id., 209, 840; 4 Id., 041.)

Opinion:
Wheeler, J.
A recognizance is defined to be "an obligation of record which a man enters into before some court of record or magistrate duly authorized, with condition to do some particular act." (3 Toml. L. D., 297; Bac. Abr.) The only material respect in which it differs from another bond is that an ordinary bond is the creation of an original debt or an obligation de novo; a recognizance is the acknowledgment of a former debt upon record. (Ib.) A bond taken by an officer of court by authority of law and required to be returned into court, when so returned and placed upon the files of the court, is an obligation of record. (10 M. R., 201; 2 Mass. R., 481.) It has the force and effect of an obligation entered into before a court of record. It is in effect a recognizance. And a recognizance is considered as a judgment, and will support a scire facias. (Bac. Abr., " Scire Facias.")
But the bond in this case was taken payable to the Governor, &c., whereas the statute directs that it be taken "to the State.." (Acts of 1846, p. 267. sec. 9.) Repeated decisions of this court have settled that a statutory bond, to be valid and effectual as such, must in every essential particular strictly conform to the statute. The present does not. it is conceived, so conform as to support a proceeding upon it by scire facias as upon a statutory bond. The judgment must therefore be reversed and the proceedings be set aside and dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.