Barringer v. State

27 Tex. 553
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 1, 1864
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 27 Tex. 553 (Barringer v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barringer v. State, 27 Tex. 553 (Tex. 1864).

Opinion

Moore, J.

The scire facias in this case should have been quashed, and the judgment nisi set aside, because they essentially vary from the terms of the bond upon which they are founded. The appellant is, by the bond, only bound in the penal sum of five hundred dollars, yet the judgment nisi against him is for the sum of one thousand dollars. The scire facias and judgment nisi recite a bond with altogether different conditions from that executed by the appellant.

The motion to quash the bond should, also, have been sustained. It does not conform to the order of the committing court. The sheriff had no authority to demand of Kesler a bond, except by the order of the justice of the peace by whom the charge against him had been judicially examined. By this he and his surety were -only required to enter into a bond in the penalty of five hundred -dollars, for his appearance at the ensuing term of the District Court of Victoria county, to answer any indictment that might, be found upon the charge preferred against him. The bond exacted by the sheriff from the principal and his surety, was not jointly and severally in the penalty of five hundred dollars; but from each of them severally for the amount of five hundred dollars, thus making the bond for double the penalty fixed by the justice of the peace. The bond taken was, therefore, different from that which the sheriff was authorized to demand. It is more onerous in its terms than he could legally have required, therefore void.

The judgment is reversed, and, it appearing that the bond upon which it was rendered is illegal, and not such as was authorized by the order of the justice of the peace under whose authority it was taken, it is ordered to be quashed.

Reversed and rendered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cantrell v. State
126 S.W.2d 965 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1939)
Wright v. State
3 S.W. 346 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1887)
Holt v. State
20 Tex. Ct. App. 271 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1886)
Roberts v. State
34 Kan. 151 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1885)
Turner v. State
14 Tex. Ct. App. 168 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1883)
Peters v. State
10 Tex. Ct. App. 302 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1881)
Patillo v. State
9 Tex. Ct. App. 456 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1880)
Carr v. State
9 Tex. Ct. App. 463 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1880)
Neblett v. State
6 Tex. Ct. App. 316 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1879)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Tex. 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barringer-v-state-tex-1864.