U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1918

Anduaga v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 21, 1918 · Batts, Grubb, Warker

254 F. 61; 165 C.C.A. 471; 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1282

Counsel

Ed. Halton, of San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs in error., Hugh R. Robertson, U. S. Atty., of San Antonio, Tex.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

United States v. Smith (District Court, D. New Jersey 1933)
United States v. Buchanan (District Court, W.D. Texas 1919)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

BATTS, Circuit Judge.

Article 1014, R. S. (Comp. St. 1916, § 1674), provides that a United States commissioner may take bail in any state “agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state.” A provision of Code of Criminal Procedure of Texas 1911, art. 321, is to the effect that—

“A bail bond shall be sufficient if it contains the following requisites: * * *

“3. If the defendant is charged with an offense that is a felony, that it state that he is charged with a felony.”

The bond upon which the judgment appealed from was based was in accordance with the law, unless the following is insufficient as a compliance with the quoted subdivision:

“Answer the United States in a complaint filed against him, the said a felony in said court, charging him with.”

It is apparent that any deficiency is the result of a mere transposition of words, probably caused by filling blanks in a printed form. The words as used constitute a sufficient recital of the fact that the defendant was charged with a felony. A mere clerical inaccuracy, re-*62suiting in .no harm to any person at interest, ought not to be permitted to defeat the purpose of the law and the intentions of the parties to the- bond.

The judgment is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.