Everett v. American Security Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Everett v. American Security Co.

158 S.E. 526, 172 Ga. 683, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 176

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 16, 1931

DocketNo. 8016

StatusPublished

This text of 158 S.E. 526 (Everett v. American Security 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

Everett v. American Security Co., 158 S.E. 526, 172 Ga. 683, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 176 (Ga. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Beck, P. J.

1. Where bail-trover proceedings are instituted and the affidavit provided in section 5150 of the Civil Code is made by the plaintiff and duly filed, and a copy thereof is affixed to the original petition or process, it is the duty of the officer serving such petition to take a recognizance payable to the plaintiff, with good security, in double the amount sworn to, for the forthcoming of such personal property to answer such judgment as may be rendered in the ease, and such security shall be bound for the payment of the eventual condemnation-money. And in a case where the officer serving the petition or process failed to take such recognizance, but instead left the property with the defendant in the case, taking from the defendant a receipt wherein it was recited that “This property, having been levied upon by the said Reagan [marshal of the court] under process in this case, is to be returned to the court on demand;” and where on the trial of the case the plaintiff [684]*684elected to take a money verdict, and such a verdict was rendered in his favor, and the defendant sued out a certiorari to the superior court, the officer who served the process and took merely the receipt quoted above, and failed to take the bond prescribed by law, may take charge of the property, and it is his duty to do so, and he would be liable himself in case he failed to do so.

No. 8016. April 16, 1931. Rehearing denied May 15, 1931. Charles W. Anderson, for plaintiffs. Kobak & Levy, E. Q. Jackson, and TP. F. Buchanan, for defendants.

2. Applying the ruling made above to the facts of this case, the court did not err in refusing the injunction, to which refusal exception is taken.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Beck, P. J.

1. Where bail-trover proceedings are instituted and the affidavit provided in section 5150 of the Civil Code is made by the plaintiff and duly filed, and a copy thereof is affixed to the original petition or process, it is the duty of the officer serving such petition to take a recognizance payable to the plaintiff, with good security, in double the amount sworn to, for the forthcoming of such personal property to answer such judgment as may be rendered in the ease, and such security shall be bound for the payment of the eventual condemnation-money. And in a case where the officer serving the petition or process failed to take such recognizance, but instead left the property with the defendant in the case, taking from the defendant a receipt wherein it was recited that “This property, having been levied upon by the said Reagan [marshal of the court] under process in this case, is to be returned to the court on demand;” and where on the trial of the case the plaintiff [684]*684elected to take a money verdict, and such a verdict was rendered in his favor, and the defendant sued out a certiorari to the superior court, the officer who served the process and took merely the receipt quoted above, and failed to take the bond prescribed by law, may take charge of the property, and it is his duty to do so, and he would be liable himself in case he failed to do so.

No. 8016. April 16, 1931. Rehearing denied May 15, 1931. Charles W. Anderson, for plaintiffs. Kobak & Levy, E. Q. Jackson, and TP. F. Buchanan, for defendants.

2. Applying the ruling made above to the facts of this case, the court did not err in refusing the injunction, to which refusal exception is taken.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E. 526, 172 Ga. 683, 1931 Ga. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/everett-v-american-security-co-ga-1931.