State ex rel. Bright v. Bright

Citations

• 14 S.C. 7
• 1880 S.C. LEXIS 92

Syllabus

<p>1. A party arrested under a charge of bastardy gave his recognizance, with a surety, to the State of South Carolina, in the penal sum of $900, conditioned to “pay over to the Court of Trial Justice fpr the county of Charleston aforesaid, the sum of seventy-five dollars per year, for the support of' the following named illegitimate .children, now in the custody of their mother, viz.: 'C., seven years old; E., five years old; and E. L., one year and nine months old, until each of said children become twelve years of age ” — Held, upon the objection of the surety, that the recognizance was not a binding obligation, because it was not in compliance with the statute,' nor in such form as would practically effect the object of the statute, nor payable to the proper officers.</p> <p>2. A recognizance in such case is not a judgment of the court, binding be-' cause not appealed from. State v. Harmon, S Hill 275, explained.</p> <p>3. The surety is not estopped from disputing the validity of the recognizance because of payments made thereon by another party, after its execution..</p>