Pacific Indemnity Co. v. United States

Good Law
50 F.2d 379·1931 U.S. App. LEXIS 4475
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 1931No. 6376California928 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Neterer, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for unpaid fines on a supersedeas bond in a criminal ease, given by the convicted party, one Randolph, as principal, and appellant as surety, conditioned that, “if the said J. W. Randolph shall'prosecute his appeal to effect, and if he fail to make his plea good; shall answer and pay all damages and costs and shall also personally be and appear * * * and shall surrender himself to the United States Marshal * * * then this obligation to be void.” The principal surrendered himelf to the marshal and is serving sentence, but did not pay the fine. Pursuant to statute and court rule, judgment was entered against appellant for the fine imposed.

Appellant contends that the statutory basis for the action is section 1273 of the Penal Code of California, and that by this statute the judgment cannot be sustained, citing People v. Barrett, 6 Cal. App. 578 , 92 P. 647 , and County of Merced v. Shaffer, 40 Cal. App. 163 , 180 P. 342 . The státute and cases clearly have no application. The instant ease is governed by federal statute (28 USCA § 869), which provides: “* * * The appellant shall prosecute his • * * appeal to effect, and, if he fails to make his plea…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.