Coppage v. Martin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Coppage v. Martin

146 S.E. 500, 39 Ga. App. 206, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 251

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 22, 1929

Docket18986

StatusPublished

This text of 146 S.E. 500 (Coppage v. Martin) 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

Coppage v. Martin, 146 S.E. 500, 39 Ga. App. 206, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 251 (Ga. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

Where property was levied upon by virtue of a distress warrant, and was claimed by a third person from whom the sheriff accepted the usual damage and claim bonds, and to whom he delivered the property, the sheriff could not afterwards discharge or waive any of the terms of the claim bond “so as to affect the interest therein of the plaintiff in fi. fa., without his consent.” Boyd v. Crews, 32 Ga. App. [207]*207138 (5) (122 S. E. 802), Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran, 37 Ga. App. 794 (1) (141 S. E. 919). In the instant suit against the surety upon a claim bond there was no evidence that the plaintiff consented to the substitution of another bond with another security in lieu of the bond sued On. The court did not err in the admission or exclusion of evidence, or in directing the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

Decided January 22, 1929. C. E. Parrish, for plaintiff in error. H. L. Jackson, Joseph A. Alexander, contra. Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

Where property was levied upon by virtue of a distress warrant, and was claimed by a third person from whom the sheriff accepted the usual damage and claim bonds, and to whom he delivered the property, the sheriff could not afterwards discharge or waive any of the terms of the claim bond “so as to affect the interest therein of the plaintiff in fi. fa., without his consent.” Boyd v. Crews, 32 Ga. App. [207]*207138 (5) (122 S. E. 802), Farmers & Merchants Bank v. Cochran, 37 Ga. App. 794 (1) (141 S. E. 919). In the instant suit against the surety upon a claim bond there was no evidence that the plaintiff consented to the substitution of another bond with another security in lieu of the bond sued On. The court did not err in the admission or exclusion of evidence, or in directing the jury to find in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed.

Decided January 22, 1929. C. E. Parrish, for plaintiff in error. H. L. Jackson, Joseph A. Alexander, contra. Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E. 500, 39 Ga. App. 206, 1929 Ga. App. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coppage-v-martin-gactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack