Goldstein v. Jackson

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Goldstein v. Jackson

101 S.E.2d 869, 97 Ga. App. 28, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 695

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 28, 1958

Docket36977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 101 S.E.2d 869 (Goldstein v. Jackson) 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

Goldstein v. Jackson, 101 S.E.2d 869, 97 Ga. App. 28, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 695 (Ga. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, Chief Judge.

The requirements of Code § 37-1403 as to what condition or conditions must be given in a ne exeat bond are dependent upon the requirements of the court’s order, upon which the writ is issued.

While it cannot be definitely ascertained from the petition in the action on the bond exactly the tenor of the court’s order granted in the application for ne exeat, it will be presumed that the court entered a valid order and only required that the principal on the bond appear to respond to the judgment entered in the main case. Since the court’s order only required an appearance to respond, the principal was required only to give a bond to meet that requirement and if he included more conditions in the bond than required in the order, such inclusion does not render the bond void, and the principal and surety are bound only by the condition contained in the bond which was required by the court's order. The principle involved is the same as that involved in statutory bonds. For the law applicable in the case of statutory bonds, see St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Koppers Co., 95 Ga. App. 687, 696 (99 S. E. 2d 275).

In August v. August, 65 Ga. App. 883 (16 S. E. 2d 784), the bond given contained the conditions called for in the court’s order and since the court was not authorized by law to impose such conditions in his order, the order was erroneous, and the bond based on such illegal order and following the conditions required by the order was void. Such was not the case here.

The demurrer based on the ground that the action was predicated on a void bond was without merit.

The question whether a writ of ne exeat can issue ex parte cannot be raised by a demurrer to a petition in an action on the bond.

[30]*30The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

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

Felton, Chief Judge.

The requirements of Code § 37-1403 as to what condition or conditions must be given in a ne exeat bond are dependent upon the requirements of the court’s order, upon which the writ is issued.

While it cannot be definitely ascertained from the petition in the action on the bond exactly the tenor of the court’s order granted in the application for ne exeat, it will be presumed that the court entered a valid order and only required that the principal on the bond appear to respond to the judgment entered in the main case. Since the court’s order only required an appearance to respond, the principal was required only to give a bond to meet that requirement and if he included more conditions in the bond than required in the order, such inclusion does not render the bond void, and the principal and surety are bound only by the condition contained in the bond which was required by the court's order. The principle involved is the same as that involved in statutory bonds. For the law applicable in the case of statutory bonds, see St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co. v. Koppers Co., 95 Ga. App. 687, 696 (99 S. E. 2d 275).

In August v. August, 65 Ga. App. 883 (16 S. E. 2d 784), the bond given contained the conditions called for in the court’s order and since the court was not authorized by law to impose such conditions in his order, the order was erroneous, and the bond based on such illegal order and following the conditions required by the order was void. Such was not the case here.

The demurrer based on the ground that the action was predicated on a void bond was without merit.

The question whether a writ of ne exeat can issue ex parte cannot be raised by a demurrer to a petition in an action on the bond.

[30]*30The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition.

Judgment affirmed.

Quillian and Nichols, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 S.E.2d 869, 97 Ga. App. 28, 1958 Ga. App. LEXIS 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-jackson-gactapp-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack