People v. Paulsen

3 Ill. Cir. Ct. 445

• Court: Illinois Circuit Court
• Decided: October 15, 1907
• Status: Published

Opinion

Windes, J.:—

I am somewhat surprised at the authorities cited on behalf of the plaintiff here being so strict in holding a surety on a recognizance. They certainly are far more strict than the usual authorities on sureties on bonds of other kinds. I think that the decision in this case turns upon the construction of the section of the statute here which to my mind has not been passed upon directly by any of the decisions cited by counsel.

Now there is no question but that the sureties may go anywhere within the state and arrest the principal and bring him to the sheriff of the county where he is to appear and surrender, and in that way relieve the surety 'from any liability upon the recognizance. Here the sheriff is made the agent of the surety to do that .thing. At the same time, according to the evidence here, he has acted as sheriff of Cook county outside of the county. Section 307 referred to says: “The surrender shall be made to the sheriff of the county where the principal is required to appear.” That does not say that the surrender shall be made in the county where the principal is bound to appear, but to the sheriff of the county where the principal is required to appear, so I take it that a fair construction of the statute is under the facts here that the moment this surrender — I mean the moment this arrest was made by the sheriff of Cook county, his deputy acting for him, that moment the sheriff of Cook county was in possession of the principal the condition of the bond was complied with. If the statute said that the surrender must be made within the county or in the county where the principal is required to appear, that would be another thing, but when the agent and the sheriff are both made one person it seems to me that there is a sufficient surrender to comply with the statute here by the principal, and that being my view of it I will give the iristruction for the defendant and refuse the instruction for the plaintiff.