
    The State v. Ryan et al.
    
    Bail bond.! foe appearance at specific teem. A recognizance for tlie appearance of the accused at a specified term of court, binds the sureties therein for his appearance at the succeeding term, even though no action is taken or order made at the term specified. Following the case of The State v. Brown, 16 Iowa, 314
    
      Appeal from Muscatine District Court.
    Saturday, December 14.
    Action on a bail bond. About the first of October, 1866, one Peter Ryan was arrested upon a charge of an assault with intent to commit a robbery, and upon a preliminary examination thereon before a justice of the peace, an order was made that he be held to appear at the next term of the District Court, to answer said charge. His bail was fixed at five hundred dollars, and in default of giving such bail, he was committed to jail. Afterward, and on the sixth of the same month, he was discharged from custody upon giving bail bond in the amount fixed by the magistrate, with the defendants as his sureties. The bond was conditioned that “ he shall appear before said court on the first day of the October Term, 1866, of the District Court of Iowa, in and for said Muscatine county, and continue from day to day, and not depart without leave or order of the court, and shall in all things abide the order and judgment of said court in the premises.”
    At the said October Term, an indictment was found by the grand jury against the said Peter Ryan, for an assault with intent to commit a robbery, and was duly returned and filed. The record does not disclose any order in the case at the said October Term. At the following January Term (to wit, January, 1867), the said Peter Ryan failed to appeal, and made default, which was duly entered against him and his sureties.
    The petition set forth these facts: The . defendants demurred, because it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and because it stated facts which avoid the cause of action. This demurrer was overruled, and judgment rendered for the amount of the bond. The defendants excepted and appeal.
    
      Cloud cé Broomkall and Henry O’Connor, for the appellants.
    Rickman' d¡ Ca/rshadden and Z. A. Ellis for the State.
   Oole, J.

The only question presented in this case for our determination, is whether a. recognizance for the appearance of an accused, at a specified term of court-binds the sureties therein for his appearance at the succeeding term, where no action is taken or order made in the case at the term specified in the bond. This question was, in effect, decided in the case of The State v. Brown et al. (16 Iowa, 314), where it was held that the sureties were liable. We are content with that ruling, and accordingly order that the judgment of the District Court, in this case, be

Affirmed.  