State ex rel. Farly v. Mitchell

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Farly v. Mitchell

1 Wright 464, 1 Ohio Ch. 464

DecidedOctober 15, 1833

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 464 (State ex rel. Farly v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State ex rel. Farly v. Mitchell, 1 Wright 464, 1 Ohio Ch. 464 (Ohio 1833).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT.

The recognizors are only bound for the penalty in .the recognizance; in no event can they be held liable beyond that sum. The recognizance is one of indemnity; 1st, for the costs; 2d, for the expenses of lying-in, and the support of the child; 3d, to save the township harmless. The costs having been collected of the principal, cannot, of course, be again charged upon the securities. So, with whatever of the expenses and maintenance has been voluntarily paid or collected. The death of the child relieves the township from any prospective liability. If would seem, therefore, and such is our opinion, that the balance of the maintenance due at the death of the child, with interest from the time when it should have been paid, determines the amount to be recovered on 1 his recognizance. Judgment is rendered, therefore, for the penalty of the recognizance, with leave to take out execution for the sum due.

[Liability of father of bastard for support not releasable by mother; Perkins v. Mobley, 4 O. S. 668, 674.]

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

BY THE COURT.

The recognizors are only bound for the penalty in .the recognizance; in no event can they be held liable beyond that sum. The recognizance is one of indemnity; 1st, for the costs; 2d, for the expenses of lying-in, and the support of the child; 3d, to save the township harmless. The costs having been collected of the principal, cannot, of course, be again charged upon the securities. So, with whatever of the expenses and maintenance has been voluntarily paid or collected. The death of the child relieves the township from any prospective liability. If would seem, therefore, and such is our opinion, that the balance of the maintenance due at the death of the child, with interest from the time when it should have been paid, determines the amount to be recovered on 1 his recognizance. Judgment is rendered, therefore, for the penalty of the recognizance, with leave to take out execution for the sum due.

[Liability of father of bastard for support not releasable by mother; Perkins v. Mobley, 4 O. S. 668, 674.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 464, 1 Ohio Ch. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-farly-v-mitchell-ohio-1833.