{
  "id": 8683187,
  "name": "STATE v. W. H. H. HOUSTON and others",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Houston",
  "decision_date": "1876-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "549",
  "last_page": "550",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. 549"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2297,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.387,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0915870571660073e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5657472694353995
    },
    "sha256": "526164908d7713a6045f06fd50e8ee7c049501b273e59ee562f13220d766f4a7",
    "simhash": "1:b3f36c30aa08d5c9",
    "word_count": 398
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:39.099656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. W. H. H. HOUSTON and others."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reads, J.\nIt was competent for his Honor to authorize the sheriff or other person, to take the recognizance of the defendants for the appearance of the principal defendant at the next term, to answer the charge of the State against him, his Honor having fixed the amount of the recognizance. And although the recognizance authorized to be taken was put in flie form of a bond with conditions, signed and sealed by the defendants, yet it is valid as a recognizance.\nThe taking of a recognizance consists in making and attesting a memorandum of the acknowledgment of a debt due the State, and of the conditions on which it is to be defeated. State v. Edney, 2 Winst., 71.\nThere is no error. Let this be certified.\nPee Cdkiam. Judement affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reads, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Shipp c\u00e9 Bailey, for defendants.",
      "Attorney General IJuryrove, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. W. H. H. HOUSTON and others.\nIt is competent for a .Tudge of the Superior court, to authorize the sheriff, or any other person, to take a recognizance from a defendant for his appearance at the next term, to answer, &c., his Honor having first fixed the amount of such recognizance.\nAlthough the recognizance authorized to be taken is put in the form of a bond, with conditions, signed and sealed by the defendants, yet it is valid as a recognizance\n(State v. Ediiey, 2 Winst, 71, cited and approved.)\nScxee Facias, on a forfeited recognizance, heard before Judge Solum ok. at Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of MeckleNbubg county.\nThe defendant Houston had been indicted for foi\u2019gery, and \u00a1aid was in custody when, upon his own affidavit, the case was continued. The court, after such continuance, made an order to discharge him from custody, upon Iris entering into recognizance with sureties, in the sum of twenty-five hundred dollars, for his appearance at the next term. This he did by executing a bond, with the other defendants as his sureties, in the sum specified and payable to the State of North Carolina, conditioned to be void should the defendant Houston appear, &c.\nAt the ensuing term he was called and failed, and a judgment nini entered against him. To the noire ft dan which issued , the defendants plead mil tiel r card. His Honor found that there was such a record, and gave judgment accordingly. Prom this judgment the defendants appealed.\nShipp c\u00e9 Bailey, for defendants.\nAttorney General IJuryrove, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0549-01",
  "first_page_order": 559,
  "last_page_order": 560
}