Mount v. Wall

Supreme Court of Georgia

Mount v. Wall

56 S.E. 298, 127 Ga. 211, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 804

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedDecember 20, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 S.E. 298 (Mount v. Wall) 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

Mount v. Wall, 56 S.E. 298, 127 Ga. 211, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 804 (Ga. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Atkinson, J.

1. A bond conditioned for the forthcoming of property-levied on under an execution, which is payable to the plaintiff in execution, is not good as statutory bond; but if the obligors or either of them receive from the levying' officer the property levied on upon the tendering of such bond, the obligor receiving the property would be liable thereon in the event the- condition should not be complied with. The reception of the property would be a sufficient consideration to support the promise to have the property forthcoming at the time and place of sale. See Wall v. Mount, 121 Ga. 831.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the excerpt from the charge complained of, in the light of the evidence, did not contain any error prejudicial to the losing party.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Atkinson, J.

1. A bond conditioned for the forthcoming of property-levied on under an execution, which is payable to the plaintiff in execution, is not good as statutory bond; but if the obligors or either of them receive from the levying' officer the property levied on upon the tendering of such bond, the obligor receiving the property would be liable thereon in the event the- condition should not be complied with. The reception of the property would be a sufficient consideration to support the promise to have the property forthcoming at the time and place of sale. See Wall v. Mount, 121 Ga. 831.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the excerpt from the charge complained of, in the light of the evidence, did not contain any error prejudicial to the losing party.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 S.E. 298, 127 Ga. 211, 1906 Ga. LEXIS 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-v-wall-ga-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack