Title: TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA v. REYNOLDS
Citation: 15 Okla. 185, 1905 OK 22, 82 P. 57 4
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: February 11, 1905

TERRITORY OF OKLAHOMA v. REYNOLDS1905 OK 2282 P. 57415 Okla. 185Decided: 02/11/1905Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Supreme Court of the Territory of Oklahoma.
TERRITORY ex rel. THACKER, Co. Atty.,v.REYNOLDS et 
al.
Feb. 11, 1905.
On Rehearing Sept. 5, 1905.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Courts have inherent power to take bail or recognizance in a criminal 
case, but clerks have such power only when it is conferred upon them by 
statute.2. Our statute does not authorize the clerk of the district court to 
take bail in a criminal case, and hence a bail bond taken by him is 
void.Under the provisions of section 633 of our Code of Criminal Procedure 
(Wilson's Rev. &amp; Ann. St. 1903, § 5769), bail is permitted to be taken only 
by the persons or courts authorized by law to arrest and imprison 
offenders.In the absence of an express statute, the clerk of the district 
court is not authorized to take bail in a criminal case, and hence any bond 
taken by him in such case is void.A bond which is void under the statute for 
want of authority to execute it cannot be enforced as common-law obligation.
Chas. M. Thacker, Co. Atty., in pro. per.
HAINER, J.
This is an action on a bail bond taken in a criminal action by the deputy 
clerk of the district court of Greer county. The facts in this case are 
identical with those in the case of Territory of Oklahoma ex rel. v. Allen et 
al. (No. 1,596, decided at this term of the court) 
On Rehearing.
HAINER, J.
This was an action commenced in the probate court of Greer county by the 
county attorney, in the name of the territory, against the defendants in error, 
upon a written instrument purporting to be a bail or appearance bond. A demurrer 
was interposed to the petition, which was sustained by the court, and an 
exception noted and the case brought here for review.
The facts pleaded in this case are the same as in cause No. 1,595. The bond 
appears to have been taken before the deputy clerk of the district court, and 
hence the rule announced in the case of Territory ex rel. v. Woodring (cause No. 
1,595, decided at this term of court) 
The judgment of the probate court is therefore affirmed, at the cost of the 
plaintiff in error.
All the Justices concurring.