Carlan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Carlan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

189 S.E. 527, 183 Ga. 715, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 389

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 14, 1937

DocketNo. 11608

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 527 (Carlan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 189 S.E. 527, 183 Ga. 715, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 389 (Ga. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Rtjsseh, Chief Justice.

1. The sheriff of A county and his official bondsman are liable to be sued on such a bond in B county, for an alleged wrongful act committed in A county, under color of his office, where the bonding company has an office, agent, and place of doing business in B county.

[716]*716No. 11608. January 14, 1937. Hamilton Ilimzey, Herbert B. Ilimzey, and Owen •& Gross, for plaintiff. J. 8. Ayers, Clifford Pratt, and O. M. McClure, for defendant.

2. In such a case it is not necessary to allege or prove that the. bonding company is not a resident of or subject to be sued in A county.

3. The sheriff and his bondsman are such joint contractors or obligors that they may be sued in the county of the residence of either, for a violation of the bond; and the right to sue the sheriff on his official bond for wrongful acts committed under color of his office is not limited to the county where he lives and which he serves, on the ground of public policy. See Code, §§ 3-204, 56-601; Lumpkin v. Calloway, 101 Ga. 226 (28 S. E. 622); Mumford v. Solomon, 8 Ga. App. 286 (46) (68 S. E. 1075); Morris v. George, 3 Ga. App. 413 (59 S. E. 1116), and cit.; National Surety Co. v. Seymour, 46 Ga. App. 109 (166 S. E. 777); Gross v. Butler, 48 Ga. App. 750 (173 S. E. 866); American Surety Co. v. Smallon, 54 Ga. App. 45 (186 S. E. 892).

All the Justices concur.

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

Rtjsseh, Chief Justice.

1. The sheriff of A county and his official bondsman are liable to be sued on such a bond in B county, for an alleged wrongful act committed in A county, under color of his office, where the bonding company has an office, agent, and place of doing business in B county.

[716]*716No. 11608. January 14, 1937. Hamilton Ilimzey, Herbert B. Ilimzey, and Owen •& Gross, for plaintiff. J. 8. Ayers, Clifford Pratt, and O. M. McClure, for defendant.

2. In such a case it is not necessary to allege or prove that the. bonding company is not a resident of or subject to be sued in A county.

3. The sheriff and his bondsman are such joint contractors or obligors that they may be sued in the county of the residence of either, for a violation of the bond; and the right to sue the sheriff on his official bond for wrongful acts committed under color of his office is not limited to the county where he lives and which he serves, on the ground of public policy. See Code, §§ 3-204, 56-601; Lumpkin v. Calloway, 101 Ga. 226 (28 S. E. 622); Mumford v. Solomon, 8 Ga. App. 286 (46) (68 S. E. 1075); Morris v. George, 3 Ga. App. 413 (59 S. E. 1116), and cit.; National Surety Co. v. Seymour, 46 Ga. App. 109 (166 S. E. 777); Gross v. Butler, 48 Ga. App. 750 (173 S. E. 866); American Surety Co. v. Smallon, 54 Ga. App. 45 (186 S. E. 892).

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 527, 183 Ga. 715, 1937 Ga. LEXIS 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlan-v-fidelity-casualty-co-ga-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack