People v. Judge of Recorder's Court

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Judge of Recorder's Court

178 N.W.2d 146, 23 Mich. App. 126, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1816

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 1970

DocketDocket 7,713

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 178 N.W.2d 146 (People v. Judge of Recorder's Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Judge of Recorder's Court, 178 N.W.2d 146, 23 Mich. App. 126, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1816 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

August 2, 1968, orders entered in Recorder’s Court holding the forfeited bail bond in the case of People v. Howard (Recorder’s Court No. A-137845) satisfied and canceled; ordering the amount of bail turned over to Wayne County treasurer for the general fund; and granting judgment against the surety.

On June 11,1969, on motion of the surety, an order entered in Recorder’s Court vacating the judgment against the surety, setting aside the forfeiture and remitting the penalty of the bond to the surety.

The people appeal, contending that the Recorder’s Court judge who signed the order of June 11, 1969, was without jurisdiction to do so. The basis of this position is the people’s argument that under CL 1948, § 726.14 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27.3564), the surety has 20 days within which to seek relief, and failure to do so forever forecloses relief. We do not so read the statute. The language of the statute: “Provided, however, that any person against whom such judgment may have been entered, shall have the rig*ht to apply to the court within 20 days after the rendition of such judgment, for the vacation of the same for good and sufficient cause shown, and said court may in its discretion, vacate such judgment on such terms as it may deem *128 just”, limits the right to apply for relief. It does not preclude an application for relief addressed to the court’s discretion.

While People v. Benmore (1941), 298 Mich 701, dealt specifically with the return of cash bail, we see no reason legitimately to differentiate between cash bail and surety bail. We read Benmore to hold that the grant or denial of the relief sought and obtained by this surety is discretionary. See also 84 ALR 420. Here, when defendant Howard appeared, the case against him was dismissed on motion of the prosecuting attorney. We find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

August 2, 1968, orders entered in Recorder’s Court holding the forfeited bail bond in the case of People v. Howard (Recorder’s Court No. A-137845) satisfied and canceled; ordering the amount of bail turned over to Wayne County treasurer for the general fund; and granting judgment against the surety.

On June 11,1969, on motion of the surety, an order entered in Recorder’s Court vacating the judgment against the surety, setting aside the forfeiture and remitting the penalty of the bond to the surety.

The people appeal, contending that the Recorder’s Court judge who signed the order of June 11, 1969, was without jurisdiction to do so. The basis of this position is the people’s argument that under CL 1948, § 726.14 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27.3564), the surety has 20 days within which to seek relief, and failure to do so forever forecloses relief. We do not so read the statute. The language of the statute: “Provided, however, that any person against whom such judgment may have been entered, shall have the rig*ht to apply to the court within 20 days after the rendition of such judgment, for the vacation of the same for good and sufficient cause shown, and said court may in its discretion, vacate such judgment on such terms as it may deem *128 just”, limits the right to apply for relief. It does not preclude an application for relief addressed to the court’s discretion.

While People v. Benmore (1941), 298 Mich 701, dealt specifically with the return of cash bail, we see no reason legitimately to differentiate between cash bail and surety bail. We read Benmore to hold that the grant or denial of the relief sought and obtained by this surety is discretionary. See also 84 ALR 420. Here, when defendant Howard appeared, the case against him was dismissed on motion of the prosecuting attorney. We find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 N.W.2d 146, 23 Mich. App. 126, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-judge-of-recorders-court-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack