Davis v. Hardwick

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Davis v. Hardwick

126 S.E. 889, 33 Ga. App. 500, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 545

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 24, 1925

Docket15308

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 126 S.E. 889 (Davis v. Hardwick) 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

Davis v. Hardwick, 126 S.E. 889, 33 Ga. App. 500, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Stephens, J.

1. The mere producing into open court by the surety of the principal in a recognizance bond at the hour and minute previously set by the judge as the time for imposing sentence after conviction, [501]*501although accompanied, with the expression from the surety, directed to the judge: “Here he is [referring to the principal]; I have brought him back as you said,” does not show a compliance with the bond under which the surety was answerable for the. principal’s presence in court until after sentence is passed. Nor does ‘a compliance with such order of the court amount to a surrender of the principal by the surety. Williams v. Jenkins, 53 Ga. 167; Perkins v. Terrell, 1 Ga. App. 250 (58 S. E. 133); Andrews v. Hardwick, 29 Ga. App. 251 (114 S. E. 644).

Decided February 24, 1925. Porter & Mebane, for plaintiff in error. James Maddox, solicitor, contra.

2. It was therefore not error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affvrmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

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

Stephens, J.

1. The mere producing into open court by the surety of the principal in a recognizance bond at the hour and minute previously set by the judge as the time for imposing sentence after conviction, [501]*501although accompanied, with the expression from the surety, directed to the judge: “Here he is [referring to the principal]; I have brought him back as you said,” does not show a compliance with the bond under which the surety was answerable for the. principal’s presence in court until after sentence is passed. Nor does ‘a compliance with such order of the court amount to a surrender of the principal by the surety. Williams v. Jenkins, 53 Ga. 167; Perkins v. Terrell, 1 Ga. App. 250 (58 S. E. 133); Andrews v. Hardwick, 29 Ga. App. 251 (114 S. E. 644).

Decided February 24, 1925. Porter & Mebane, for plaintiff in error. James Maddox, solicitor, contra.

2. It was therefore not error to direct a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affvrmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Bell, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 S.E. 889, 33 Ga. App. 500, 1925 Ga. App. LEXIS 545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-hardwick-gactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack