Coffin v. Dorsey

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Coffin v. Dorsey

107 S.E. 564, 27 Ga. App. 131, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 730

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 6, 1921

Docket12267

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 107 S.E. 564 (Coffin v. Dorsey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coffin v. Dorsey, 107 S.E. 564, 27 Ga. App. 131, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 730 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, J.

1. Where a criminal recognizance has been duly forfeited, and a scire facias has been issued and served on the principal and the surety as provided by law, and at the return term no answer is filed by either principal or surety, and no sufficient cause is shown to the [132]*132contrary, judgment on motion should be entered against principal and surety. Penal Code (1910), § 962.

Decided June 6, 1921.

Motion to set aside judgment; from Floyd superior court — Judge Wright. January 12, 1921.

Harris & Harris, for plaintiffs in error. E. S. Taylor, solicitor-general, contra.

2. Where a criminal recognizance has been duly forfeited and a scire facias has been issued and served, the principal has until the State case against him has been called at the next term to appear and answer the charge, and the surety has until that time to produce him to answer the charge against.him. If the principal fails to appear, or the surety fails to produce him and shows no sufficient excuse or reason for not doing so, it is proper for the court to enter against them a judgment absolute upon the scire facias. Freeman v. State, 112 Ga. 648 (37 S. E. 886); Russell v. State, 45 Ga. 9.

3. A criminal bond was duly forfeited at a term of the superior court, and scire facias was issued and served on the principal and the surety, returnable to the next term. During the latter term the ease against the principal was called for trial and he failed to appear, and no evidence was offered at that term to show why judgment absolute should . not be had, and judgment was rendered accordingly. Either the principal or the surety might have avoided the judgment, by proof to the court, before the juries were discharged, of the inability of the principal to be present; and the failure to do so was negligence, depriving either of the right to vacate the judgment at a subsequent term of the court. McArdle v. McDaniel, 75 Ga. 270.

4.. The forfeiture proceedings in this case were all regular and in strict conformity to law, and the court did not err in overruling the motion to set aside the judgment absolute.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Hill, J.

1. Where a criminal recognizance has been duly forfeited, and a scire facias has been issued and served on the principal and the surety as provided by law, and at the return term no answer is filed by either principal or surety, and no sufficient cause is shown to the [132]*132contrary, judgment on motion should be entered against principal and surety. Penal Code (1910), § 962.

Decided June 6, 1921.

Motion to set aside judgment; from Floyd superior court — Judge Wright. January 12, 1921.

Harris & Harris, for plaintiffs in error. E. S. Taylor, solicitor-general, contra.

2. Where a criminal recognizance has been duly forfeited and a scire facias has been issued and served, the principal has until the State case against him has been called at the next term to appear and answer the charge, and the surety has until that time to produce him to answer the charge against.him. If the principal fails to appear, or the surety fails to produce him and shows no sufficient excuse or reason for not doing so, it is proper for the court to enter against them a judgment absolute upon the scire facias. Freeman v. State, 112 Ga. 648 (37 S. E. 886); Russell v. State, 45 Ga. 9.

3. A criminal bond was duly forfeited at a term of the superior court, and scire facias was issued and served on the principal and the surety, returnable to the next term. During the latter term the ease against the principal was called for trial and he failed to appear, and no evidence was offered at that term to show why judgment absolute should . not be had, and judgment was rendered accordingly. Either the principal or the surety might have avoided the judgment, by proof to the court, before the juries were discharged, of the inability of the principal to be present; and the failure to do so was negligence, depriving either of the right to vacate the judgment at a subsequent term of the court. McArdle v. McDaniel, 75 Ga. 270.

4.. The forfeiture proceedings in this case were all regular and in strict conformity to law, and the court did not err in overruling the motion to set aside the judgment absolute.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 S.E. 564, 27 Ga. App. 131, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coffin-v-dorsey-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack