People v. McCracken

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. McCracken

161 N.W.2d 758, 11 Mich. App. 553, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1321

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 1968

DocketDocket 1,375, 1,376, and 1,377

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 161 N.W.2d 758 (People v. McCracken) 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. McCracken, 161 N.W.2d 758, 11 Mich. App. 553, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1321 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Burns, P. J.

The United Bonding Insurance Company appeals from judgments which were entered upon the forfeiture of 3 recognizance bonds. The question common to each of these consolidated cases is:

“Should a forfeiture of the bond and a subsequent judgment be entered against the surety when the principal is unable to appear because of incarceration by the Federal authorities (in Indiana) and the surety has offered to produce the principal upon his release by the Federal authorities or in the alternative, deposit a sum of money with the court to guarantee the cost of returning the principal upon his release by the Federal authorities?”

The Michigan Supreme Court has stated by way of dictum that the impossibility of the principal appearing at a specified time because of arrest and detention in Michigan would discharge the surety from liability. People v. Robb (1894), 98 Mich 397, 400. But the Court has not addressed itself to the problem of incarceration outside of Michigan. The majority rule is clear that such imprisonment *555 will not excuse the production of the principal. See State v. Mitchell (1965), — Del — (212 A2d 873), and relevant cases cited therein on p 885.' ,.

United Bonding Insurance Company, as jailer away from jail, was bound at its peril to keep the accused within this jurisdiction.

Judgments, affirmed. '

Quinn and Ziem, JJ., conpurred.

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

Burns, P. J.

The United Bonding Insurance Company appeals from judgments which were entered upon the forfeiture of 3 recognizance bonds. The question common to each of these consolidated cases is:

“Should a forfeiture of the bond and a subsequent judgment be entered against the surety when the principal is unable to appear because of incarceration by the Federal authorities (in Indiana) and the surety has offered to produce the principal upon his release by the Federal authorities or in the alternative, deposit a sum of money with the court to guarantee the cost of returning the principal upon his release by the Federal authorities?”

The Michigan Supreme Court has stated by way of dictum that the impossibility of the principal appearing at a specified time because of arrest and detention in Michigan would discharge the surety from liability. People v. Robb (1894), 98 Mich 397, 400. But the Court has not addressed itself to the problem of incarceration outside of Michigan. The majority rule is clear that such imprisonment *555 will not excuse the production of the principal. See State v. Mitchell (1965), — Del — (212 A2d 873), and relevant cases cited therein on p 885.' ,.

United Bonding Insurance Company, as jailer away from jail, was bound at its peril to keep the accused within this jurisdiction.

Judgments, affirmed. '

Quinn and Ziem, JJ., conpurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.W.2d 758, 11 Mich. App. 553, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccracken-michctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack