State v. Hunter

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Hunter

129 S.W. 717, 150 Mo. App. 10, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 663

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 14, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 S.W. 717 (State v. Hunter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hunter, 129 S.W. 717, 150 Mo. App. 10, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 663 (Mo. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

REYNOLDS, P. J.

It appears by the transcript in this case that one John nolt, then being in the custody of the sheriff of New Madrid county, under capias issued on the information filed in the circuit court of that county, Avherein and whereby he was charged with the crime of grand larceny, entered into recognizance for his appearance at the next term of that court to answer that charge, the defendants Lee Hunter and J. A. Cresap being his sureties in his recognizance. Holt not appearing at the term, his recognizance was declared forfeited and scire facias issued. At the return term the sureties appeared and on a trial judgment went against them for $500, the amount of the penalty named in the recognizance. Whereupon they appealed to this court.

In the case of State v. Epstein, 186 Mo. 89, 84 S. W. 1120, the Supreme Court (l. c. 97), held that such cases are AAdthin the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that court holding that while the amount of the judgment on the recognizance may be beloAV the limit of appellate jurisdiction of that court, a proceeding to enforce the recognizance is not an original action at law, but a continuation of the criminal proceeding already begun and pending under the information charging a felony; that as an appeal upon the information for the felony must be to the Supreme Court, so also must the auxiliary or ancillary proceeding on the recognizance. This case is accordingly transferred to the-Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

All concur.

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

REYNOLDS, P. J.

It appears by the transcript in this case that one John nolt, then being in the custody of the sheriff of New Madrid county, under capias issued on the information filed in the circuit court of that county, Avherein and whereby he was charged with the crime of grand larceny, entered into recognizance for his appearance at the next term of that court to answer that charge, the defendants Lee Hunter and J. A. Cresap being his sureties in his recognizance. Holt not appearing at the term, his recognizance was declared forfeited and scire facias issued. At the return term the sureties appeared and on a trial judgment went against them for $500, the amount of the penalty named in the recognizance. Whereupon they appealed to this court.

In the case of State v. Epstein, 186 Mo. 89, 84 S. W. 1120, the Supreme Court (l. c. 97), held that such cases are AAdthin the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, that court holding that while the amount of the judgment on the recognizance may be beloAV the limit of appellate jurisdiction of that court, a proceeding to enforce the recognizance is not an original action at law, but a continuation of the criminal proceeding already begun and pending under the information charging a felony; that as an appeal upon the information for the felony must be to the Supreme Court, so also must the auxiliary or ancillary proceeding on the recognizance. This case is accordingly transferred to the-Supreme Court of the State of Missouri.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.W. 717, 150 Mo. App. 10, 1910 Mo. App. LEXIS 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hunter-moctapp-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack