Flemming v. Shockley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Flemming v. Shockley

68 S.E. 1013, 8 Ga. App. 229, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 115

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedSeptember 20, 1910

Docket2160

StatusPublished

This text of 68 S.E. 1013 (Flemming v. Shockley) 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

Flemming v. Shockley, 68 S.E. 1013, 8 Ga. App. 229, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 115 (Ga. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. A surety upon a criminal recognizance who, in order to protect himself from a forfeiture of the bond and the liability consequent thereon, is forced to procure the issuance of a requisition and to expend money to compel the presence of the principal in accordance with his obligation, may recover of the principal on the- appearance bond any expense necessarily incurred by himself as security in preventing a breach of the bond by his principal and in enforcing the presence of the principal, in accordance with latter’s obligation to be present and to abide the judgment and sentence of the court in the criminal ease against him. Erom the promise of the principal to be present, without expense or trouble to his surety, there arises an implied promise on the part of the principal to pay his surety any loss or damage the surety may sustain by reason of the violation of his promise.

2. In a proper case the surety need not wait until the bond has been finally forfeited; he may diminish his damages by producing the principal, and prevent the bond from being estreated. Judgment reversed.

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

Russell, J.

1. A surety upon a criminal recognizance who, in order to protect himself from a forfeiture of the bond and the liability consequent thereon, is forced to procure the issuance of a requisition and to expend money to compel the presence of the principal in accordance with his obligation, may recover of the principal on the- appearance bond any expense necessarily incurred by himself as security in preventing a breach of the bond by his principal and in enforcing the presence of the principal, in accordance with latter’s obligation to be present and to abide the judgment and sentence of the court in the criminal ease against him. Erom the promise of the principal to be present, without expense or trouble to his surety, there arises an implied promise on the part of the principal to pay his surety any loss or damage the surety may sustain by reason of the violation of his promise.

2. In a proper case the surety need not wait until the bond has been finally forfeited; he may diminish his damages by producing the principal, and prevent the bond from being estreated. Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 S.E. 1013, 8 Ga. App. 229, 1910 Ga. App. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flemming-v-shockley-gactapp-1910.