Current v. . Church

Stacy, C. J. What has happened in this case is that, instead of “giving adequate security to abide tbe sentence, judgment, or decree of *660 the Supreme Court,” as required o£ appellants under C. S., 4650, the defendant Clyde Fowler executed a recognizance with J. S. Current as surety to appear at the next term of the Superior Court of Forsyth County, then and there to answer the charge preferred against him, etc. It has never been understood that a surety on an appearance bond was to take the place of the defendant and abide the judgment of the court. S. v. Bradsher, 189 N. C., 401, 127 S. E., 349; S. v. White, 164 N. C., 408, 79 S. E., 297; S. v. Schenck, 138 N. C., 560, 49 S. E., 917. But it is said the parties intended the “Recognizance” to operate as a stay within the meaning of the law, and it should accordingly be construed. Walicer v. Williams, 88 N. C., 7. The fact is, however, there was nothing to stay the execution of the judgment at any time. C. S., 4654-4655, and 650. This was the view of the court below, and no error has been made to appear on the record. Affirmed.