Frank v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Frank v. State

112 So. 921, 22 Ala. App. 669

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 19, 1927

Docket8 Div. 525.

StatusPublished

This text of 112 So. 921 (Frank v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank v. State, 112 So. 921, 22 Ala. App. 669 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Defendants were sureties on-an appearance bond of one Patrick O’Hare,, conditioned on the appearance of the said O’Hare at the circuit court of Limestone County. The said O’Hare failing to appear, the bond was forfeited, and a conditional judgment was entered for the amount named in the bond. At a subsequent term of the court, after notice as required by law, this judgment was made final for $1,000, and on motion for defendant was reduced to $400. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

Defendants were sureties on-an appearance bond of one Patrick O’Hare,, conditioned on the appearance of the said O’Hare at the circuit court of Limestone County. The said O’Hare failing to appear, the bond was forfeited, and a conditional judgment was entered for the amount named in the bond. At a subsequent term of the court, after notice as required by law, this judgment was made final for $1,000, and on motion for defendant was reduced to $400. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 So. 921, 22 Ala. App. 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-state-alactapp-1927.