Taylor v. Taintor
16 Wall. 366, 83 U.S. 366, 21 L. Ed. 287 (1873)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A bail surety is not excused from producing the principal for trial when the principal's appearance is made impossible by their arrest and imprisonment in another state for a separate crime. Such an event is not considered an 'act of the law' that exonerates the surety from the conditions of the recognizance.
Facts:
- Edward McGuire was charged with grand larceny in Fairfield County, Connecticut, and his bail was set at $8,000.
- Taylor and other sureties entered into a recognizance (bail bond) for $8,000, promising that McGuire would appear for his court date in Connecticut.
- After being released on bail, McGuire traveled to his home state of New York.
- While in New York, McGuire was arrested by New York authorities based on a requisition from the governor of Maine for a burglary allegedly committed in Maine before the Connecticut charge.
- New York authorities surrendered McGuire to officials from Maine, who transported him to that state against his will.
- McGuire failed to appear for his court date in Connecticut because he was imprisoned in Maine.
- McGuire was subsequently tried, convicted, and sentenced to fifteen years in a Maine penitentiary for the burglary charge.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Connecticut, through its treasurer Taintor, sued McGuire's sureties in the Superior Court of Fairfield County, Connecticut, to recover the $8,000 from the forfeited recognizance.
- The Superior Court, acting as the trial court, rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the State of Connecticut.
- The defendants (the sureties) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Errors for Fairfield County, the highest court in Connecticut.
- The Supreme Court of Errors affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The sureties (now plaintiffs in error) brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court on a writ of error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the arrest and extradition of a criminal defendant (the principal) by a different state, at the request of a third state, legally excuse the principal's sureties from their obligation to produce him for trial in the original state, under the 'act of the law' doctrine?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Swayne
No, the extradition of a principal by another state does not legally excuse the sureties from their obligation. A bail surety is only exonerated if performance is rendered impossible by an act of God, an act of the obligee (the state holding the bond), or an act of the law operative in the state where the obligation was assumed. Here, the act of the governor of New York was the act of a stranger, not an act of Connecticut law. When sureties post bail, they take custody of the principal and have a duty to keep him within their control; by allowing McGuire to leave Connecticut, they assumed the risk of his subsequent arrest. Furthermore, the impossibility was ultimately caused by McGuire's own prior criminal act in Maine, and what does not avail the principal cannot avail his sureties. The sureties were negligent for permitting McGuire to leave the state and for failing to interpose their claim to his custody when he was arrested in New York.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Field
Yes, the extradition of the principal should legally excuse the sureties. The 'act of the law' that renders performance impossible should include proceedings authorized by any law of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land. McGuire was arrested and delivered to Maine under the authority of the U.S. Constitution and a federal act of Congress governing extradition. This valid federal legal proceeding took the principal from the sureties' custody without their consent and made it impossible for them to surrender him in Connecticut. To hold the sureties liable when the execution of federal law created the impossibility works an injustice.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the common law principle that bail sureties act as private jailers with near-absolute responsibility for their principal. By narrowly defining the 'act of the law' defense to only include acts of the same sovereign who is a party to the bond, the Court places a significant burden on sureties. This precedent requires sureties to actively monitor their principals, prevent them from leaving the jurisdiction, and intervene in any legal proceedings in other states to assert their custodial rights, reinforcing the high-risk nature of the bail bond business.
