Opinion ID: 306580
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Resolute Appeal

Text: 4 To meet the $15,000.00 bail set for Eskew's release, Ramirez, the bail bondsman, executed two separate court appearance bonds totaling $15,000.00 and presented them to the Clerk of the District Court on December 5, 1969. Bail power of attorney Z No. 48381, which limited Ramirez's authority to $12,500.00, was attached to a bond for $12,500.00. This power was executed by Resolute on November 11, 1968 and was to expire unless used before December 31, 1969. A separate bail power of attorney Z No. 63938, which limited Ramirez's authority to $6,600.00, was attached to a second bond for $2,500.00. This power was executed by Resolute on June 23, 1969 and was to expire unless used before June 30, 1970. 5 Resolute says that Ramirez's actual authority was limited to $12,500.00 and asks that so much of the judgment [of forfeiture]    as exceeds $12,500.00 be reversed. To support its position, Resolute argues that the language of limitation [of authority] contained in the power of attorney was sufficient to create a duty of inquiry on the part of the clerk of the Court    to ascertain the true extent of the bondsman's authority. We disagree. 6 Two separate and distinct powers of attorney-each valid on its face-were presented by Ramirez to the clerk. Each power stated: Separate power-of-attorney must be attached to each bond executed. Neither power of attorney said that it could not be used in combination with another separate and distinct power executed by Resolute. 7 The terms of the two separate, distinct, and valid powers were not sufficient to alert the clerk that the bondsman might be exceeding his authority. The clerk's belief in Ramirez's authority to execute two separate bonds totaling $15,000.00 was reasonable. 8 Accordingly, we affirm.