Ringgold Co. v. Ross
This text of 40 Iowa 176 (Ringgold Co. v. Ross) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The first error assigned needs not, in the state of the record, be considered. The bond was forfeited on the first day of the term, before an indictment had been found, and because of the failure of defendant to appear and challenge the grand jury. The forfeiture'was premature. The defendant had the privilege of appearing and objecting to the grand j ury, but he was under no obligation to do so.
The bond could be forfeited only for a failure to appear when his presence was lawfully required. The State of Iowa v. Klingman, 14 Iowa, 404.
Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
40 Iowa 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ringgold-co-v-ross-iowa-1874.