Court Opinion

ID: 9668642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:20:28.901287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:46.746012
License: Public Domain

ON state’s motion for rehearing
MORRISON, Judge.
We erroneously referred in our original opinion to “appel*460lant,” whereas the phrase should have been “the principal.” Our original opinion is corrected in this respect.
The state now calls our attention to the fact that the principal did not appeal. The judgment as to him, therefore, remains undisturbed. Remittitur having been filed, the judgment rendered against the appellant sureties is reformed so as to provide for the recovery against them of the sum of $100.00 and all costs. As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.
The state moves that we amend the style of the case in view of the fact that the principal did not appeal. An examination of the records of this court reveals that appeals in bond forfeiture cases have consistently been styled in the trial court and this court in the name of the principal in the forfeited bond “et al” without regard to whether the appeal was by one or more sureties alone, or by both the principal and his sureties.
Appellants having superseded the judgment by supersedeas bond, it is ordered that judgment be entered against the sureties thereon for the performance of the judgment as reformed and affirmed.
The state’s motion for rehearing is overruled.