Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.27 (2026)

Action on recognizance; technicality as bar.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Act 175 of 1927

765.27 Action on recognizance; technicality as bar.

Sec. 27.

No action brought upon any recognizance entered into in any criminal prosecution, either to appear and answer, or to testify in any court, shall be barred or defeated nor shall judgment thereon be arrested, by reason of any neglect or omission to note or record the default of any principal or surety at the time when such default shall happen, nor by reason of any defect in the form of the recognizance, if it sufficiently appear, from the tenor thereof, at what court the party or witness was bound to appear, and that the court or a magistrate before whom it was taken was authorized by law to require and take such recognizance.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17189 ;-- CL 1948, 765.27

FormerLaw Notes:

See section 32 of Ch. 163 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 6008; CL 1871, § 7874; How., § 9485; CL 1897, § 11869; and CL 1915, § 15696.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014). · cites it 8× “Finally, Moore also relied on MCL 765.27 to conclude that “[t]he Legislature has plainly declared that the trial court’s failure to provide proper notice of a principal’s default does not bar or preclude the court’s authority to enter judgment on a forfeited recognizance.”

In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 740 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “" MCL 765.27; see also People v. Woodall, 85 Mich.”

People v. Moore, 276 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “” MCL 765.27; see also People v Woodall, 85 Mich App 514, 515 ; 271 NW2d 298 (1978).”

People v. Woodall, 271 N.W.2d 298 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978). “MCL 765.27; MSA 28.914. However, even if an order of forfeiture had been properly entered in 1969, the action in 1977 to enter a judgment on the bond was barred by the statute of limitations.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.