State v. . Welborn

172 S.E. 174, 205 N.C. 601, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 23

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

It is conceded by the Attorney-General that the judgment entered on the forfeited recognizance cannot be sustained. C. S., 191.

Tbe action of tbe Federal Court and tbe defendant’s present confinement in prison prevented bim from appearing, and bis bondsmen from producing bim, at tbe April Term, Guilford Superior Court, agreeably to tbe provisions of bis recognizance. Granberry v. Tool, 14 N. C., 155; 6 C. J., 1026; 3 R. C. L., 52; Annotation, 26 A. L. R., 412. Hence, under tbe principles announced in S. v. Eure, 172 N. C., 874, 89 S. E., 788, S. v. Holt, 145 N. C., 450, 59 S. E., 64, and S. v. Morgan, 136 N. C., 593, 48 S. E., 604, tbe cases, as well as tbe bearing on tbe scire facias, might well bave been continued until tbis legal impediment is removed. Adrian v. Scanlin, 77 N. C., 317; Sedberry v. Carver, 77 N. C., 319.

It is not clear as to wbat “costs” bave accrued in tbe seven cases against tbe defendant for wbicb be may be adjudged liable or tbe proceeds from bis forfeited recognizance used to pay, C. S., 5628, S. v. Maultsby, 139 N. C., 583, 51 S. E., 956, but as there was error in entering judgment absolute on tbe bond, tbis point may not arise in subsequent proceedings.

Error and remanded.