{
  "id": 8523408,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN BANGLE CORL, Defendant, and RUTHERFORD LEROY CORL and ELIZABETH FLYNN CORL, Sureties",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Corl",
  "decision_date": "1982-07-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 8119SC1393",
  "first_page": "107",
  "last_page": "112",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 107"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 190",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "196"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 484",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569777
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "492"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0484-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S.E. 2d 438",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "440-41"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625974
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "477"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S.Ct. 1443",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 L.Ed. 2d 531",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "384 U.S. 928",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        12062626,
        12062492,
        12062731,
        12062812,
        12062554,
        12062908
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/384/0928-03",
        "/us/384/0928-01",
        "/us/384/0928-04",
        "/us/384/0928-05",
        "/us/384/0928-02",
        "/us/384/0928-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S.E. 2d 335",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "343"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559537
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "42"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0031-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 S.E. 788",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1916,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N.C. 874",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11256129
      ],
      "year": 1916,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0874-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S.E. 740",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1923,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N.C. 694",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657575
      ],
      "year": 1923,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0694-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 917",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1905,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "917"
        },
        {
          "page": "918-19"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 N.C. 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269957
      ],
      "year": 1905,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/138/0560-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "487 F. 2d 899",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        217222
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/487/0899-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "415 F. 2d 82",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2176661
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "84"
        },
        {
          "page": "83"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/415/0082-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "389 F. Supp. 1186",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3363954
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/389/1186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "539 F. 2d 445",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1039879
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "448"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/539/0445-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 A.L.R. 594",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1922,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 602,
    "char_count": 11452,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.81,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.980034203462801e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7404618956549204
    },
    "sha256": "a2d46a1a54c355ffe0f40566b705e662024c524fdbc7ad263ce4b0b601331a93",
    "simhash": "1:040bf9335d5faeb7",
    "word_count": 1928
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:20:52.636886+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Clark and Webb concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN BANGLE CORL, Defendant, and RUTHERFORD LEROY CORL and ELIZABETH FLYNN CORL, Sureties"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nFor authority on the duration of a surety\u2019s liability on an appearance bond, see generally Annot., 20 A.L.R. 594 (1922); 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Bail and Recognizance, \u00a7\u00a7 104-110 (1980 & Cum. Supp. 1981). While the authorities set forth do not necessarily control because of the express language of the bond here, we review them briefly for the purpose of placing this case in the context of topical decisions.\nIn United States v. Miller, 539 F. 2d 445 (5th Cir. 1976), and United States v. Wray, 389 F. Supp. 1186 (W. D. Mo. 1975), defendants were sentenced to imprisonment but allowed a short stay of commitment. They then failed to appear as ordered. Their bonds required each defendant to \u201cabide any judgment entered ... by surrendering himself to serve any sentence imposed and obeying any order or direction in connection with such judgment as the court imposing it may prescribe.\u201d In each case the court held the failure to appear for commitment came within the terms of the bond, and the surety was thus liable.\nIn United States v. Gonware, 415 F. 2d 82 (9th Cir. 1969), the court observed that a bail bond, like any other contract, should be construed to give effect to the reasonable intentions of the parties. It then stated:\n]I]t is a common practice in the federal courts as well as the state courts, for defendants to request and for courts to grant short stays of execution of sentence to allow defendants to put their affairs in order before they start to serve their sentence. . . . Given this widespread practice, it is reasonable that the parties to this bail bond intended that the surety would remain liable during a reasonable stay of execution of the sentence.\nId. at 84.\nIn United States v. D\u2019Anna, 487 F. 2d 899 (6th Cir. 1973), judgment against the surety was reversed. The court ruled that Michigan law controlled; and it found that the Michigan Supreme Court had ruled, in a case involving a similar bond, that the surety\u2019s liability terminated when sentence was imposed and could not be extended except upon consent.\nIt appears the weight of authority that unless the bond includes a condition requiring the defendant to abide the final order or judgment of the court or, if convicted, to render himself in execution thereof, the surety\u2019s liability terminates upon pronouncement of judgment. Annot., 20 A.L.R. 594, \u00a7 XVI. The rationale is that sentencing removes the defendant from the custody of the surety and returns him to the custody of the law. See 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Bail and Recognizance, \u00a7 110.\nOn the basis of State v. Schenck, 138 N.C. 560, 49 S.E. 917 (1905), North Carolina is cited as holding counter to this general rule. The bond there was conditioned on the defendant\u2019s appearance to answer the charges, and it provided that he was \u201cnot to depart the same without leave first had and obtained.\u201d Id. at 560, 49 S.E. at 917. Upon conviction defendant appealed, but failed to give the undertakings required for appeal or to appear at the next term of court. Judgment was entered against the sureties, and they appealed. Our Supreme Court upheld the sureties\u2019 liability, stating:\nIt is said by the highest authority that a recognizance (or bail bond) in general binds to three things: (1) to appear and answer either to a specified charge or to such matters as may be objected; (2) to stand and abide the judgment of the court; and (3) not to depart without leave of the court; and that each of these particulars are distinct and independent. This was said, too, with reference to a bail bond worded precisely like the one in this case. . . . The conviction does not, by virtue of its own force, put the defendant in the custody of the court or of the sheriff. This is done, in our practice at least, by an order from the court, given of its own motion or on application of the solicitor, and the court, when it passes judgment upon a defendant and he appeals, can direct that he be not taken into custody immediately ....\nWe conclude that the recognizance binds the sureties for the continued appearance of their principal, from day to day, during the term and at all stages of the proceeding, until he is finally discharged by the court, either for the term or without day. He must answer its call at all times and submit to its judgment.\nId. at 562-65, 49 S.E. at 918-19; accord, State v. Hutchins, 185 N.C. 694, 116 S.E. 740 (1923); State v. Eure, 172 N.C. 874, 89 S.E. 788 (1916).\nOur Supreme Court thus has viewed the surety\u2019s undertaking in broad terms. Prior North Carolina cases did not, however, consider bonds with language identical to that of the bond here; and liability \u201cmust be determined by the conditions of the bond in question.\u201d State v. Mallory, 266 N.C. 31, 42, 145 S.E. 2d 335, 343 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 928, 16 L.Ed. 2d 531, 86 S.Ct. 1443 (1966).\nAn appearance bond is a contract of the defendant and the surety with the State. See Gonware, supra, 415 F. 2d at 83. General rules for construction of contracts thus determine liability thereon. A contract must be construed as a whole, considering each clause and word with reference to other provisions and giving effect to each if possible by any reasonable construction. Robbins v. Trading Post, 253 N.C. 474, 477, 117 S.E. 2d 438, 440-41 (1960). The heart of a contract is the intention of the parties as determined from its language, purposes, and subject matter, and the situation of the parties at the time of execution. Adder v. Holman & Moody, Inc., 288 N.C. 484, 492, 219 S.E. 2d 190, 196 (1975).\nThe condition of the bond here that defendant \u201cshall appear . . . whenever required and will at all times render himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court\u201d makes the bond a continuing obligation. See 8 Am. Jur. 2d, Bail and Recognizance, \u00a7 104. Further language, however, provides that \u201cthis bond is effective and binding upon the obligors throughout all stages of the proceedings in the trial divisions . . . until the entry of judgment in the superior court. \u201d (Emphasis supplied.) Construing the bond as a whole, the continuing obligation imposed by the requirement that defendant appear \u201cwhenever required\u201d and render himself amenable to court orders \u201cat all times\u201d must be considered in light of the further provision that the bond binds the obligors only \u201cuntil the entry of judgment in the superior court.\u201d To interpret the continuing obligation as terminating upon entry of judgment gives effect to both provisions.\nFurther, the situation of the parties changes upon entry of judgment. If, as here, the judgment is one of imprisonment, defendant\u2019s hope for acquittal or a non-incarcerative sentence terminates at that point. Such termination materially increases the risk of defendant\u2019s flight. There is logic in the contention that this increased risk is not within the contemplation of the surety when the bond contract is entered and thus should not be imposed without his specific consent. See Miller, supra, at 448.\nWe conclude that the express terms of the bond, and of G.S. 15A-534(h) from which said terms were derived in haec verba, dictate a holding that the sureties\u2019 liability terminated upon entry of judgment in the superior court. This occurred on 23 January 1981. The trial judge announced sentence on that date, and the records of the clerk filed with this Court show that she recorded judgment and that the session ended on that date. Because 23 January 1981 preceded defendant\u2019s failure to appear for commitment, which occurred sometime after his release from the hospital on 2 March 1981, the sureties may not be held liable on the bond.\nA stay of commitment is appropriate and customary under certain circumstances. Provision should be made, however, to assure the defendant\u2019s appearance when ordered. G.S. 15A-534 and bonds entered pursuant thereto do not make such provision. The General Assembly may wish to revise the statute. Pending any such revision, consent of the parties to modification of the suretyship contract for the purpose of extending liability through any period during which commitment is stayed may best insure the appearance when ordered of the beneficiaries of such stays.\nReversed.\nJudges Clark and Webb concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Sandra M. King, for the State.",
      "Kenneth W. Parsons for surety appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN BANGLE CORL, Defendant, and RUTHERFORD LEROY CORL and ELIZABETH FLYNN CORL, Sureties\nNo. 8119SC1393\n(Filed 6 July 1982)\nArrest and Bail \u00a7 11\u2014 sureties\u2019 liability on appearance bonds ended at entry of judgment\nWhere one condition of an appearance bond was that defendant \u201cshall appear . . . whenever required and will at all times render himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court,\u201d and where the bond further provided that \u201cthis bond is effective and binding upon the obligors throughout all stages of the proceedings in the trial divisions . . . until the entry of judgment in the superior court,\" the sureties\u2019 liability upon the bond terminated upon entry of judgment in the superior court, and the trial court erred in holding the sureties liable on their bond for the defendant\u2019s failure to submit himself for commitment upon his release from medical treatment.\nAPPEAL by sureties from Washington, Judge. Judgment entered 16 October 1981 in Superior Court, CABARRUS County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 June 1982.\nOn 10 April 1980 defendant John Bangle Corl was arrested on criminal charges. His appearance bond, executed by Rutherford L. Corl and Elizabeth Flynn Corl as sureties, provided in pertinent part as follows:\nPretrial Release \u2014The conditions of this bond are that the above named defendant shall appear in the above entitled action whenever required and will at all times render himself amenable to the orders and processes of the Court. It is agreed and understood that this bond is effective and binding upon the obligors throughout all stages of the proceedings in the trial divisions of the General Court of Justice until the entry of judgment in the district court from which no appeal is taken or until the entry of judgment in the superior court.\nIf the defendant appears as ordered and otherwise obeys and performs the foregoing conditions of this bond, then this bond is to be void, but if the defendant fails to obey or perform any of these conditions, the court will enter an order declaring the bond forfeited. [Emphasis supplied.]\nOn 23 January 1981 defendant pled guilty to two charges. He received an active sentence on one and a suspended sentence with probation on the other.\nBecause defendant wished to obtain medical treatment and to secure medical records before commitment, Judge Davis ordered \u201cthat the Sheriff commit defendant, effective March 2, 1981.\u201d On that date Judge Davis was advised that defendant was hospitalized, and he ordered that \u201c[c]ommitment be held until such time, from day to day, as defendant is released from the hospital.\u201d\nDefendant did not appear for commitment upon his release. Orders for his arrest were issued, and he was arrested on 25 September 1981.\nOn 17 August 1981 an order of forfeiture on the appearance bond was served on the sureties. They moved to dismiss, and a hearing was held. On 16 October 1981 Judge Washington entered judgment holding the sureties liable on their bond for the defendant\u2019s failure to submit himself for commitment.\nFrom this judgment, the sureties appeal.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Sandra M. King, for the State.\nKenneth W. Parsons for surety appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0107-01",
  "first_page_order": 139,
  "last_page_order": 144
}
