Case Name: Frank A. Douglass et al. v. The State
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1888-10-10
Citations: 26 Tex. Ct. App. 248
Docket Number: No. 5911
Parties: Frank A. Douglass et al. v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 248–252

Head Matter:
No. 5911.
Frank A. Douglass et al. v. The State.
1. Scire Facias.—Bail Bond is void if it obligates the principal to appear before the court of jurisdiction at a time when no legal term of the same can be held. But see the opinion on rehearing to the effect that, under the law in force when the bond in this case was executed (November 15, 1886), the time for the convening of the district court of Kerr county was the eighth Monday after the first Monday in March, and the bond, binding the principal to appear at the next term of the said district court on the eighth Monday after the first Monday in March, 1887, was, in this respect, valid.
2. Same.—Subsequent to the execution of the bond, and prior to the eighth Monday after'the first Monday in March, 1887, the time for the conven ingof the district court of Kerr county was, by act of the-Legislature, changed from the eighth to the ninth Monday after the first Monday in March, and it was at the first term of the said court after such change that the judgment nisi was rendered. Held, that the judgment nisi was correctly rendered at such term, and the obligors in the bond were charged with notice of such change.
8. Same .—A bail bond executed after the presentment of an indictment must describe the very offense named in the indictment. In this case the indictment, in separate counts, charges forgery and the uttering of a forged instrument in writing; and the bond, following the indictment, sets out the essential element of both offenses. Held, correct, and not obnoxious to the objection that it is duplicitous.
4 Same.—Judgment Nisi is void unless rendered against the principal in the bond and all of the sureties The judgment nisi in this case omits one of the sureties, and is therefore void; wherefore the final judgment is reversed.
Appeal from the District Court of Kerr. Tried below before the Hon. T. M. Paschal.
The opinions disclose,the nature of the case. The amount of the bond adjudged was eight hundred dollars
W. M. Rust, for the appellants.
W. L. Davidson, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

Opinion:
Willson, Judge.
The bail bond obligates the principal to appear "at the next term of the district court of Kerr county, Texas, at the court house in the town of Kerrville, on the eighth Monday after the first Monday in March, it being May 2, 1887." At the time specified a legal term of said court could not be held, and no term was then held, hut on the ninth day of May, that being the ninth Monday after the first Monday in March, 1887, a legal term of said court was held, at which term said bail bond was declared forfeited.
In answer to the citation issued upon the judgment nisi, defendants attacked the validity of the proceeding because the time stated in the bond for the appearance of the principal was a time when no legal term of said court could be held. This objection was overruled, and judgment final was rendered upon said judgment nisi.
We are of the opinion that the whole proceeding is erroneous, and that the bail bond is a nullity. If the bond had merely stated that the principal should appear "before the district court of Kerr county, Texas, at its next regular term, to be held at," etc., it would have been sufficient; but,- having specified the exact time when he was bound to appear, and that time being one at which a legal term of said court could not be held, renders the bond fatally defective. (Burnett v. The State, 18 Texas Ct. App., 283; Thomas v. The State, 12 Texas Ct. App., 417; Thomas v. The State, 13 Texas Ct. App., 496.)
Because of the fatal defect in the bail bond above mentioned, the judgment is reversed and the proceeding dismissed.
Reversed and dismissed.
This opinion was delivered at the Austin branch of the court on June 20, 1888, but a motion for rehearing being filed by the Assistant Attorney General, the same was taken under advisement and transferred to Tyler, where it was. dlsjMmd of in. the opinion that follows. •