Case Name: Ringgold Co. v. Ross et al.
Court: Iowa Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Iowa
Decision Date: 1874-12-24
Citations: 40 Iowa 176
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ringgold Co. v. Ross et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Iowa Reports
Volume: 40
Pages: 176–177

Head Matter:
Ringgold Co. v. Ross et al.
Bail Bond: failure to appear. The failure of a defendant, held to answer for a criminal offense, to appear and challenge the grand jury-does not authorize a forfeiture of his bond.
Appeal from Ringgold District Court.
Thursday, December 24.
ActioN upon a recognizance executed by defendants for the appearance of one B. F. Ross before the District Court of Ringgold county, Iowa, on the 26th day of March, 1873, to answer to a charge of burglary.
The petition alleges that, at the time of the execution of the bond, the next term of the District Court of said county was, by law, fixed on the 26th day of March, 1873, and that, subsequent to the taking of said bond said term was, pursuant to law, by a general order, changed to the 3d day of February, 1873, and that, at said time, a forfeiture of the recognizance was taken by reason of the failure of Ross to appear and answer said charge. The demurrer of defendants to the petition was overruled, and, they electing to stand upon the demurrer, the court examined the evidence and rendered judgment for plaintiff. The bill of exceptions recites that the plaintiff, to sustain his cause of action, introduced the bond and the record of forfeiture entered on the first day of the February term, 1873, which record recites that the said B. F. Ross was called to object to the grand jury, when the same was being impaneled, and failing to appear, it was ordered that tbe bond be forfeited. This was all the evidence introduced. The defendants objected to the • court’s rendering judgment against them, for the reason that the testimony was insufficient; and they excepted to the judgment when rendered. Defendants appeal, and assign as error the sustaining of the demurrer and the rendering of judgment against them upon the evidence.
Warner <& Bwlloole, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.

Opinion:
Day, J.
The first error assigned needs not, in the state of the record, be considered. The bond was forfeited on the first day of the term, before an indictment had been found, and because of the failure of defendant to appear and challenge the grand jury. The forfeiture'was premature. The defendant had the privilege of appearing and objecting to the grand j ury, but he was under no obligation to do so.
The bond could be forfeited only for a failure to appear when his presence was lawfully required. The State of Iowa v. Klingman, 14 Iowa, 404.
Reversed.