County of Los Angeles v. Delahunt

California Court of Appeal Jun 22, 1929 No. Docket No. 5464.Published

Before: Craig

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a surety on a bail bond is liable for the defendant's failure to appear as stipulated, regardless of delays in prosecution or the specific nature of the underlying felony charge, provided the defendant failed to appear when the case was called.

Issues

Whether a surety is relieved of liability on a bail bond due to a long delay between the filing of an information and the arraignment.
Whether a complaint on a bail bond is insufficient if it fails to specify the nature of the felony or allege notice to the defendant of the arraignment date.
Whether the allegation that a case was 'duly and regularly called for arraignment' constitutes an insufficient legal conclusion.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Her obligation does not provide that she shall be relieved of liability in case the indictment is void or if the prosecution shall fail for any reason, but only if the defendant shall appear as stipulated.”

CRAIG, J.

—r- The respondent County of Los Angeles instituted an action upon a bail bond furnished by one James E. Merritt and signed by the defendants Delahunt and Eggleston. Mrs. Eggleston’s demurrer to the complaint having been overruled, she was given ten days within which to answer, but failed to do so, whereupon her default was entered. Judgment was accordingly rendered, entered and docketed against the last-named defendant for the amount specified in the undertaking, with interest and costs, and she appeals therefrom.

The complaint alleged that on August 29, 1919, complaint was filed in the justice’s court, charging Merritt, with having committed lewd and lascivious acts, a felony; that after a hearing he was held to answer in the Superior Court and.

[571]

committed to the custody of the sheriff until he should give hail in the sum of five hundred dollars. It appears that on September 2, 1919, such bond was signed by the defendants, that it was filed on September 8, 1919, and it is alleged further that “the said James E. Merritt was under and solely by virtue of the terms of said bail bond, released from the custody of the sheriff of Los Angeles county. ’ ’ The bond is attached to the complaint as an exhibit, and in paragraph IV, which is the center of attack, it is averred:

“That within thirty (30) days after said commitment, the district attorney of the county of Los Angeles, state of California, filed in the superior court of the state of California, in and for said county, a certain information entitled 'The People of the State of California vs. James E. Merritt, ’ No. 14579 on the records of said

court;

that thereafter the said case was duly and regularly called for arraignment on January 25th, 1926, in Department 18 of said court . . . ; that at said time the said James E. Merritt did not appear and was not present in court and did not render himself amenable to the order and process of said court, whereupon the court ordered that the bail of said defendant, James E. Merritt, be forfeited, which forfeiture was duly entered upon the minutes of said court.”

The bond in question required that:

County of Los Angeles v. Delahunt

AI Brief

CRAIG, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief