Jones v. Russell

44 Ga. 460
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJuly 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 44 Ga. 460 (Jones v. Russell) 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
Jones v. Russell, 44 Ga. 460 (Ga. 1871).

Opinion

Lochrane, Chief Justice.

The legal question raised by the record in these cases, argued together, is the right of Walker to be discharged from his liability for the amount claimed to be due the plaintiff, from the fact of his having been discharged as a bankrupt. It appears from the record that during his term as auctioneer of the city of Augusta, he had disposed of the goods entrusted to him by the plaintiff, and this suit was instituted to recover the proceeds. The 33d section of the Bankrupt Act, of March 2d, 1869, provides that certain classes of claims, originating in fraud, embezzlement, defalcation, or while acting in a fiduciary character, shall not be discharged by the discharge of the bankrupt; and the first question to be determined, is whether this claim falls within this section of the Bankrupt Act. It is admitted that he was acting as an auctioneer of the city of Augusta, and I am of opinion, personally, that he came within the definition of a public officer, under the Act of 1827. But, as the discussion of this subject is not essential to the decision of the case, we need not enlarge upon it. In the opinion of the Court, this debt sued on was created while the defendant was acting in a fiduciary capacity or character, and, therefore, it was error in the Court below to have sustained the plea of his discharge in bankruptcy, as such discharge did not enure to the defendant as a protection against a debt created while he was acting in a fiduciary capacity.

It being the opinion of the Court that Walker was not discharged, it follows that his sureties was not entitled to be relieved of their liability on his official bond, and we affirm the judgment holding them liable. Judgment reversed in the case of the Mayor, etc., vs. Walker et al., and affirmed in the other case, Jones, etc., vs. Russel, Mayor, etc.

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

Related

Shipley v. Platts
97 N.W. 1 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1903)
Georgia Railroad v. Cubbedge, Hazlehurst & Co.
1 Ga. L. Rep. 138 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1885)
Grannis v. Cubbedge, Hazlehurst & Co.
71 Ga. 582 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1883)
Zeperink v. Card
11 F. 295 (E.D. Missouri, 1882)
Hill v. Sheibley
68 Ga. 556 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1882)
Herman v. Lynch
26 Kan. 435 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1881)
Gilreath & Son v. Holston Salt & Plaster Co.
67 Ga. 702 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1881)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 Ga. 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-russell-ga-1871.