In re Recognizance of Tomer
50 A. 268, 19 Del. 31, 3 Penne. 31, 1900 Del. LEXIS 48
Opinion
I recall no practice of the kind referred to by the State, and it strikes me as' being a very remarkable practice,, unless under very peculiar circumstances. These men have simply entered into a recognizance to appear at this term of Court. Now they appear and while there is something in the office of the Attorney-General, there is nothing before us.
We decline to make the order asked for. They have met the condition of their recognizance and are entitled to go. The State can proceed again de nova.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In re Recognizance of Tomer, 50 A. 268, 19 Del. 31, 3 Penne. 31, 1900 Del. LEXIS 48 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1900).
50 A. 268 (In re Recognizance of Tomer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Quillen v. Betts
98 A.2d 770 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1953)
State Ex Rel. Odenwald v. District Court
38 P.2d 269 (Montana Supreme Court, 1934)
In re Killcourse
104 A. 837 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1918)