翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Taylor University ・ Taylor University College ・ Taylor v Attorney-General ・ Taylor v Beere ・ Taylor v Caldwell ・ Taylor v Connex South Eastern Ltd ・ Taylor v New Zealand Poultry Board ・ Taylor v Plumer ・ Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland ・ Taylor v. Beckham ・ Taylor v. Illinois ・ Taylor v. Louisiana ・ Taylor v. Mississippi ・ Taylor v. Standard Gas & Electric Co. ・ Taylor v. Sturgell ・ Taylor v. Taintor ・ Taylor v. United States ・ Taylor v. United States (1990) ・ Taylor Valley ・ Taylor Vancil ・ Taylor Vause ・ Taylor Vichorek ・ Taylor Village, New Brunswick ・ Taylor von Kriegenbergh ・ Taylor W. O'Hearn ・ Taylor Walker ・ Taylor Walker (Days of Our Lives) ・ Taylor Walker (footballer) ・ Taylor Wallace ・ Taylor Wane Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Taylor v. Taintor ： ウィキペディア英語版 Taylor v. Taintor ''Taylor v. Taintor'', 83 U.S. 366 (1872), was a United States Supreme Court case. It is commonly credited as having decided that a person to whom a suspect is remanded, such as a bail bondsman, has sweeping rights to recover the suspect. However, this is erroneous, since the commonly cited portion of the case, obiter dicta, has no binding precedential value (although dicta can have persuasive value). ==Case overview== In 1866, sureties made an $8,000 cash bond for Edward McGuire in Connecticut, after he was charged with grand larceny. While awaiting trial in Connecticut, McGuire returned to his home in New York. Unknown to the bondsmen in Connecticut, McGuire was wanted in Maine for another felony. Upon request from the Governor of Maine later in 1866, the Governor of New York extradited McGuire to Maine, where he was convicted of burglary in 1867 and imprisoned for fifteen years. When McGuire failed to appear for trial in Connecticut in October 1866, the cash bond was forfeited. The Connecticut bondsmen sought relief from the forfeiture on grounds that they were not at fault in failing to secure McGuire's appearance, but rather that his nonappearance was the result of his extradition to Maine—an intervening "act of law" under the Extradition Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court, by a vote of 4 to 3 (2 Justices recused themselves) held that the sureties were at fault and were not protected by the Extradition Clause. The sureties' "supineness and neglect" in failing to keep up with McGuire and to inform the New York authorities of the pending Connecticut case caused McGuire's nonappearance.〔''Lund v. Seneca County Sheriff’s Department'', 230 F.3d 196, 198 (6th Cir. 2000)〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Taylor v. Taintor」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.