Pounds v. State
Pounds v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
One Cluff Simms was, by that name, indicted for the offence of unlawful retailing, and entered into a recognizance with appellant Pounds as his surety. Failing to appear judgment nisi was taken against him and his surety jointly in the sum of one hundred dollars. A scire facias issued upon this judgment, correct in all its recitals,, except that it recited the judgment nisi as having been taken against E. Cluff Sims, thus prefixing a new initial to the name of the' principal. The writ was served upon the surety Pounds, but not upon the principal.
An alias writ of scire facias was then issued, which was likewise served upon the surety, but not upon the principal. This alias writ was fatally defective in failing properly to recite the judgment nisi in several particulars. At the next term of the court Pounds appeared and moved to quash the
The case must be reversed, and when remanded the writ of scire facias, which is both pleading and process, should by leave of court be so amended as to conform strictly to the judgment nisi.
In this way all questions as to variance may be avoided. Tucker v. The State, 55 Miss. 452.
Reversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- S. H. Pounds v. State
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Scire Facias. Plea ofnul tiel record. When not double. Where the defendant in a scire facias purporting to have been issued upon a judgment nisi based upon a forfeited recognizance files a plea of nul tiel record averring that no such “ bond” and judgment as set out in the scire facias are of record, theplea is not demurrable as being double in attacking both the recognizance and the judgment nisi, the averment referred to being simply a statement of two defects in one and the same record. 2. Same. Amendment thereof.\\ how and when made. Ascirefaeias, beingboth a pleading and process, may be amended, upon leaveof the court, to conform to the judgment nisi upon which it is based, where the two do not correspond and the defence of nul tiel record is pleaded. Tucker v. The State, 65 Miss. 452, cited.