Stokes v. People

Citations

• 63 Ill. 489

Syllabus

<p>1. Recognizance—;forfeiture of It has been held that, under our statute, the forfeiture of a recognizance may be taken at a term of court subsequent to that at which the prisoner is recognized to appear.</p> <p>2. Same—variance in the name of the principal in the body of the recognizance, and as signed by him—pleadings and proofs in that regard. In a proceeding by sciA'e facias on a forfeited recognizance, the objection that the condition of the recognizance provided for the appearance of “A. M. Stokes,” while the instrument was signed by “Wesley 31. Stokes,” is obviated by the averment and proof that Wesley M. Stokes was described in the recognizance, through mistake, as A. M. Stokes, and■ that the true intent and meaning of the recognizance was to secure the appearance of Wesley M. Stokes.</p> <p>3. Same—when execution may be awarded. It was held, in the case of Wheeler v. The People, 39 Ill. 430, that, on a scire facias upon a joint and several recognizance, where service is had on one or more of the cognizors, and a simple return of nihil as to the rest, execution may be awarded against those served with process. But that case does not go to the extent of authorizing the award of execution without service, nor is there any warrant for such a judgment until there is service or two nihils as to those against whom judgment is rendered.</p>