Supreme Court of South Carolina
Laval v. Gell
4 S.C.L. 265
Decided January 15, 1809
No negative treatmentNo negative treatment found: no reversal on appeal and no treated citing cases.
Summary
The Supreme Court of South Carolina denied the motion for a new trial, holding that a defendant's release from custody does not discharge the bail bond. The court affirmed that the bail bond remains enforceable and that a separate order from the district court is required to release the bail obligation.
Holdings
- Whether the discharge of a defendant from custody defeats the enforceability of a bail bond.. Discharge of the defendant does not discharge the bail bond; the bond remains enforceable unless a separate order is obtained from the district court. 4 S.C.L. 265
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
Treatment rows appear when later opinions record how they used this case.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
in the District Court of Charleston, was of opinion-against this defence, and the plaintiff bad a verdict.
After hearing argument, in support of the motion in this court,, the judges were all of opinion it ought not to be granted. That the bail bond-was lawfully given for any thing that can appear as respects the bail. The bail bond was not discharged, although the defendant was discharged from his arrest. If the discharge of the defendant, from the custody of the sheriff, could be considered as-discharging the bail bond, or entitling the bail to be released from his obligation ; yet it was necessary to have applied to the District Court for an order to discharge tire bail. The bail bond cannot be defeated in this way.
Motion discharged.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Paul W. Reeves, Petitioner v. State of Alaska, Respondent1966 Alas. LEXIS 172 (1966)
- City of Billings, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Thomas Layzell, Defendant and Appellant242 Mont. 145 (1990)
- William D. Mello vs. Superior Court117 R.I. 578 (1977)
- State v. Brown2014 NMSC 38 (2014)
- State of Oklahoma v. Darrell R. Buchanan, A/k/a Leroy Clark, and Marcus Ebenhack, Surety1987 Okla. LEXIS 253 (1987)