McDermid v. Judge

Supreme Court of Georgia

McDermid v. Judge

49 S.E. 800, 122 Ga. 28, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 101

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 30, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 49 S.E. 800 (McDermid v. Judge) 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

McDermid v. Judge, 49 S.E. 800, 122 Ga. 28, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 101 (Ga. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Candler, J.

A bond given for the purpose of appealing a case from the county court to the superior court recited that the appellant “brings Gr. D. Lovett and tenders him as security, and they, the said [appellant] as principal, and Gordon Alderman as security, hereby acknowledge themselves bound to the plaintiff . . for the eventual condemnation-money in said case.” The bond was signed by the appellant as principal, and by Lovett as security, but was not signed by Alderman. Held, that this was a good appeal bond, and Lovett was bound thereon as security, although the name of Alderman appeared in the face of the bond as acknowledging himself bound as security and was not signed to the bond. Even if this were not so, the bond was amendable, the defect being a mere irregularity. It was therefore error to dismiss the appeal. Kimbrough v. Pitts, 63 Ga. 496 ; Hendrix v. Mason, 70 Ga. 523 ; Anthanissen v. Brunswick Co., 92 Ga. 409.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Candler, J.

A bond given for the purpose of appealing a case from the county court to the superior court recited that the appellant “brings Gr. D. Lovett and tenders him as security, and they, the said [appellant] as principal, and Gordon Alderman as security, hereby acknowledge themselves bound to the plaintiff . . for the eventual condemnation-money in said case.” The bond was signed by the appellant as principal, and by Lovett as security, but was not signed by Alderman. Held, that this was a good appeal bond, and Lovett was bound thereon as security, although the name of Alderman appeared in the face of the bond as acknowledging himself bound as security and was not signed to the bond. Even if this were not so, the bond was amendable, the defect being a mere irregularity. It was therefore error to dismiss the appeal. Kimbrough v. Pitts, 63 Ga. 496 ; Hendrix v. Mason, 70 Ga. 523 ; Anthanissen v. Brunswick Co., 92 Ga. 409.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 S.E. 800, 122 Ga. 28, 1905 Ga. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcdermid-v-judge-ga-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack