Faubion v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Faubion v. State

2 S.W. 830, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 494, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 179

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 9, 1886

DocketNo. 5025

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2 S.W. 830 (Faubion v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Faubion v. State, 2 S.W. 830, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 494, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 179 (Tex. Ct. App. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Hubt, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment final on a forfeited bail bond. The allegation in the scire facias was that the bond forfeited was executed on the first day of February, A. D. 1885. From the bill of exceptions it appears that the court admitted in evidence, over the objections of the defendants; the bond which was dated the thirteenth of December, 1884, and approved by the sheriff on the first day of February, 1885. In signing the bill the learned trial judge states that the court held that the date of the approval of the bond was its real date.

This precise question was presented and determined in the case of Holt v. The State, 20 Texas Court of Appeals, 271, where it was held that the date of the signature was the date of the bond.

The variance was material, and the bond should have been excluded. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Hubt, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment final on a forfeited bail bond. The allegation in the scire facias was that the bond forfeited was executed on the first day of February, A. D. 1885. From the bill of exceptions it appears that the court admitted in evidence, over the objections of the defendants; the bond which was dated the thirteenth of December, 1884, and approved by the sheriff on the first day of February, 1885. In signing the bill the learned trial judge states that the court held that the date of the approval of the bond was its real date.

This precise question was presented and determined in the case of Holt v. The State, 20 Texas Court of Appeals, 271, where it was held that the date of the signature was the date of the bond.

The variance was material, and the bond should have been excluded. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 S.W. 830, 21 Tex. Ct. App. 494, 1886 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faubion-v-state-texapp-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack