Curry v. State

2 Morr. St. Cas. 1362, 39 Miss. 511
Mississippi Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1872·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The first error assigned is the refusal of the court to quash the scire facias, upon the ground that the recognizance was void.

The recognizance was conditional for the appearance of defendant below at the next term of the circuit court,” to be held, &c., “ on the first Monday in May next, 1859.”

The scire facias recited a recognizance to appear “ on the sixth Monday after the fourth Monday in March, being the second Monday in May.”

The recognizance was not void. See Code, 139, art. 201; lb., 620, art. 291; lb., 632, art. 368.

Second and third. The plea of nul tiel record was properly overruled after the amendment of this scire facias, which the court possessed the undoubted right to allow, so as to make it conform substantially to the recognizance upon which it was founded.

The scire facias is to be regarded as a complaint in the proceeding, as well as the process or writ, by which the defendant is summoned to appear.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

Curry v. State, 2 Morr. St. Cas. 1362, 39 Miss. 511 (Mich. 1872).

2 Morr. St. Cas. 1362 (Curry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Washington v. State
53 So. 416 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1910)
Territory of Oklahoma Ex Rel. Thacker v. Conner
1906 OK 70 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1906)
Tucker v. State
55 Miss. 452 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1877)