Hubbard v. Walker

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Hubbard v. Walker

123 S.E. 917, 32 Ga. App. 490, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 486

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 15, 1924

Docket15573

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 S.E. 917 (Hubbard v. Walker) 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

Hubbard v. Walker, 123 S.E. 917, 32 Ga. App. 490, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 486 (Ga. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Luke, J.

1. Where the principal in a criminal recognizance conditioned for his appearance to answer a specific criminal charge therein designated is subsequently arrested for an. entirely different and distinct offense, and, being found guilty of the latter offense, is delivered into the custody of the State, to serve a term upon the chain-gang in accordance with the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction of this State, and where, after entering upon the service of his sentence, he is paroled and the bond is not forfeited until after the term of his sentence has expired, the sureties on the bond are not ipso facto discharged. S'ee, in this connection, Benson v. Harris, 19 Ga. App. 328 (2) (91 S. E. 491), and the criticism there made of the decision in Cooper v. Brown, 10 Ga. App. 730 (73 S. E. 1101).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts alleged in the answer of the defendant to the nule nisi and scire facias issued in the instant case, the court did not err in striking, on motion of the solicitor-general, the defendant’s answer and in thereafter rendering judgment against him.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., amd Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Luke, J.

1. Where the principal in a criminal recognizance conditioned for his appearance to answer a specific criminal charge therein designated is subsequently arrested for an. entirely different and distinct offense, and, being found guilty of the latter offense, is delivered into the custody of the State, to serve a term upon the chain-gang in accordance with the sentence of a court of competent jurisdiction of this State, and where, after entering upon the service of his sentence, he is paroled and the bond is not forfeited until after the term of his sentence has expired, the sureties on the bond are not ipso facto discharged. S'ee, in this connection, Benson v. Harris, 19 Ga. App. 328 (2) (91 S. E. 491), and the criticism there made of the decision in Cooper v. Brown, 10 Ga. App. 730 (73 S. E. 1101).

2. Under the foregoing ruling and the facts alleged in the answer of the defendant to the nule nisi and scire facias issued in the instant case, the court did not err in striking, on motion of the solicitor-general, the defendant’s answer and in thereafter rendering judgment against him.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., amd Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 S.E. 917, 32 Ga. App. 490, 1924 Ga. App. LEXIS 486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbard-v-walker-gactapp-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack