Brown v. Bradford

30 Ga. 927
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided June 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

Stephens, J.,

delivering the opinion.

The sole question here is, whether or not the sureties of the sheriff can avail themselves of the former judgment in favor of their principal, they not being parties to that judgment. We think they can. The sheriff could, beyond doubt, protect himself by the judgment, and when he is clear, we think his sureties are clear. The responsibility is for his default, and he is in default when he acts against the [929] judgment of the Courts, and not when he acts in conformity with them. He was not in default in refusing to account again for this money, after there was a judgment of the proper Court that he had already accounted for it once, and was not bound to account for it any more.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brown v. Bradford, 30 Ga. 927 (Ga. 1860).

30 Ga. 927 (Brown v. Bradford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hill v. Wooten
279 S.E.2d 227 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1981)
United States v. American Surety Co. of New York
56 F.2d 734 (Second Circuit, 1932)
Stevens v. Carroll
105 N.W. 653 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1906)
Price v. Carlton
68 L.R.A. 736 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Lamb v. Wahlenmaier
77 P. 765 (California Supreme Court, 1904)
City of Anderson v. Fleming
66 L.R.A. 119 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1903)
Sonnentheil v. Texas Guarantee & Trust Co.
56 S.W. 143 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1900)
Crum v. Wilson
61 Miss. 233 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1883)