Court Opinion

ID: 9454531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:49:16.886405+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:09.235040
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant in its motion for rehearing contends the Court erred in stating that the bail bond followed illustrative Form 17 in the Appendix of Forms, Fed.R.Crim.P., and that this mistake in fact was crucial in determining the applicable law. Appellant also contends that our opinion is not in accord with United States v. Foster, 79 F.Supp. 422 (S.D.N.Y.1948) and is in conflict with United States v. Egan, 394 F.2d 262 (2 Cir. 1968).
We are of the opinion that all of appellant’s contentions are without merit or are not determinative of the questions raised in this case. Our original opinion merely stated that the bail bond used followed the illustrative Form 17 and there was inserted in that bond form the clause restricting travel to the Eastern District of Missouri. There is no restriction clause in illustrative Form 17 and the opinion did not intend to so indicate. The quotation referred to in the opinion setting forth the travel restriction was intended to convey that this clause was inserted in the body of the bond as an addition to the standard phraseology of illustrative Form 17.1 We then held that any modification of the travel restriction under the circumstances of this case was binding on the surety without its consent.
The Foster case by way of dictum in footnote 1 on p. 424 of 79 F.Supp. said:
“The form of bond used in the Southern District of New York which differs from the form of bond set forth in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, form 17, makes necessary the consent of the surety.”
There is no showing in Foster what the bond form was or whether there was a direct requirement in the bond itself that the surety be notified of any change in travel restrictions, and the only issue in that case was whether the travel restriction imposed should be modified. There is no actual discussion of the form of the bond nor any reason stated for the dictum set forth solely in footnote 1. In fact we don’t think the footnote in Foster merits headnote 6, that is so heavily relied upon by the appellant.
We do not find Egan, supra, to be in conflict with the case at bar. The precise holding in Egan was that the subsequent arrest of the principals on the bond on another charge did not exonerate the surety and further that modification of a reporting order by lengthening the time interval at which the principals were to report to the Court did not exonerate the surety. Appellant Stuyvesant was also the bondsman in the Egan case and advanced the same argument that the modification of restrictions was a basis for exoneration. The Egan court in dealing with that contention said at p. 266 of 394 F.2d:
“The orders [of modification] clearly come within this provision [referring to the bond provision that the defend*528ant is to appear at such other places as he may be required in accordance with any and all orders and directions relating to the defendant’s appearance in the above entitled matter as may be given or issued by the United States District Court, etc.] and it was contemplated by all the parties, including the surety, that such orders might be made. There is nothing in the bonds which call for notice to the surety if any such order or direction is issued, nor was there any enlargement of the limits of the bail.”
The Court in Egan then went on to hold at 267 of 394 F.2d that where the criminal defendant moves the court for a modification of the terms of the bond “ * * * the surety must look to the defendant for notice of the motion or discover it itself from checking the court docket.”
The appellant bonding company now informs the Court that the defendant has subsequently been found, tried, convicted and imprisoned. At the time of the hearing on appeal the appellant stated to the Court that it had no knowledge of the whereabouts of the defaulting defendant.
Petition for Rehearing is overruled.

. A clarifying modification of the opinion has been made to show that the additional clause relating to travel restrictions is not contained in illustrative Form 17.