Burd v. Commonwealth

6 Citing cases

  1. Vaughn v. Commonwealth

    395 S.W.2d 763 (Ky. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    If the act that prevents the appearance of the accused justifies or excuses the nonappearance no forfeiture should be ordered. It is incumbent on the accused or his surety to show that accused's nonappearance was excusable or justifiable. Burd v. Commonwealth, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 945. Appellants showed that Montgomery had been removed to Tennessee by extradition but failed to show that he was in jail or imprisoned in Tennessee at the time of his nonappearance in the Monroe Circuit Court. To the contrary, the proof shows that Montgomery was free on bail. Any excusable basis for nonappearance by reason of the extradition was removed when he was released on bail in Tennessee. He was then free to appear in the Monroe Circuit Court in obedience to the terms of his bail bond therein.

  2. Marrone v. State

    458 P.2d 736 (Alaska 1969)   Cited 8 times

    In rejecting this contention, the court said: 335 S.W.2d 945 (Ky. 1960). The power to extradite is lodged in the governor of this state.

  3. State v. Superior Court in for County of Maricopa

    393 P.2d 919 (Ariz. 1964)   Cited 15 times

    In granting this motion the court would have to find that such was reasonable cause for the non-appearance. While there are circumstances, which when proved, would be valid grounds for vacating the judgment of forfeiture, this is clearly not one of them. Burd v. Commonwealth, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 945; Ward v. State ex rel. Carmen, 200 Okla. 51, 196 P.2d 856, 4 A.L.R.2d 436; 8 C.J.S. Bail § 97. There being no reasonable cause shown, within the contemplation of Rule 74, the superior court was without jurisdiction to vacate, modify or suspend the judgment of forfeiture. Until such a showing was made the court was powerless to exercise its discretion.

  4. State v. Mitchell

    59 Del. 11 (Del. Super. Ct. 1965)   Cited 5 times

    Below will be found a collection of cases which hold that imprisonment of a person by another state who has been released on bail will not — as an act of law — excuse the production of such person when it is time for the appearance of that person before the court where the bail is applicable. Cain v. State, 55 Ala. 170, 172 (1876); State v. Stanton, 59 Ariz. 55, 122 P.2d 855, 856 (1942); Adler v. State, 35 Ark. 517, 534 (1880); Bowling et al. v. State, 229 Ark. 441, 316 S.W.2d 343, 345 (1958); Vatcher v. Egas, 100 Cal.App. 99, 279 P. 1029, 1030 (1929); People v. Durbin, 218 Cal.App.2d 851, 32 Cal.Rptr. 569, 572 (1963); Taintor v. Taylor, 36 Conn. 242, 252; Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. 366, 371, 21 L. Ed. 287, 290 (Conn.); Public Service Mut. Ins. Co. v. State, 135 So.2d 777, 779 (Fla.App., 1961); Burd v. Commonwealth, 335 S.W.2d 945, 948 (Ky. Ct. of App., 1960); State v. Altone, 140 Me. 210, 35 A.2d 859, 860 (1944); State v. Wynne, 356 Mo. 1095, 204 S.W.2d 927, 930 (1947); State v. Honey, 165 Neb. 494, 86 N.W.2d 187, 189 (1957); Continental Cas. Co. v. People, 202 Misc. 740, 111 N.Y.S. 2d 495, 498 (N Y Sup. Ct., 1952); People v. Hernandez, 15 A.D.2d 798, 224 N.Y.S. 2d 703, 704 (App.Div. 1962); State v. Pelley, 222 N.C. 684, 24 S.E.2d 635, 638 (1943); Metcalf v. State, 57 Okl. 64, 156 P. 305, 307, L.R.A. 1916E, 595 (1916); Ricks v. State, 189 Okl. 598, 119 P.2d 51 (1941); Ward v. State ex rel. Carman, 200 Okl. 51, 196 P.2d 856, 858, 4 A.L.R. 2d 436 (1947); Weber v. United States, 32 F.2d 110, 111 (C.C.A. Okl. 1929); Wallace v. State, 196 Tenn. 577, 269 S.W.2d 780, 783 (1954) and State v. Douglas, 91 W. Va. 338, 112 S.E. 584, 26 A.L.R. 408 (1922).

  5. Archer v. Citizens Fidelity Bank Trust Company

    365 S.W.2d 727 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 26 times

    Apparently the matter was treated as though each party had made a motion under CR 12.03. For a similar result under CR 56, see Collins v. Duff, Ky., 283 S.W.2d 179. See also Burd v. Commonwealth, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 945, where motion for summary judgment was treated as motion under CR 12.03. CR 12.03 is the Kentucky counterpart of F.R.Civ.P. rule 12(c).

  6. Turner v. Commonwealth

    338 S.W.2d 213 (Ky. Ct. App. 1960)   Cited 3 times

    Their response is in the nature of an answer, which they recognized by so styling it in this case. Since no reply was required by CR 7.01, the averments in the answer were taken as denied or avoided. CR. 8.04; Burd v. Com., Ky. 1960, 335 S.W.2d 945. The Ison case, having been decided before these rules were adopted, is not applicable. The appellant Turner was indicted October 21, 1957, for the felony of maliciously shooting at another with intent to kill (KRS 435.170).