Oliver v. Ross

27 Ga. 363
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 15, 1859
StatusPublished

This text of 27 Ga. 363 (Oliver v. Ross) 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
Oliver v. Ross, 27 Ga. 363 (Ga. 1859).

Opinion

By the Court.

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

That the judgment was amendable, we are satisfied. 24 Ga., 167. Mayo vs. Kersey.

It was said, that an amendment of the judgment, would affect the surety on the illegality bond. But what if it would ? It must be presumed, that he knew the law of amendment, and contracted in reference to it. Besides, he is no party here, and, for ought that appears, he may never have occasion to be a party any where. If the principal in the bond, produces the property according to the condition of the bond, and it is to be presumed that every man will observe his obligations, the bond will be satisfied, and the surety never have a cause of complaint.

Judgment affirmed.

McDonald J. absent.

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

Related

Mayo v. Kersey
24 Ga. 167 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Ga. 363, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oliver-v-ross-ga-1859.