Pappas v. Aldredge

15 S.E.2d 718, 192 Ga. 482, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 495
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 16, 1941
Docket13736.
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 15 S.E.2d 718 (Pappas v. Aldredge) 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
Pappas v. Aldredge, 15 S.E.2d 718, 192 Ga. 482, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 495 (Ga. 1941).

Opinion

Duckworth, Justice.

1. A condition stipulated in a pardon requiring the prisoner to pay a fine of $50, and fixing no time within which it must be done, and containing no requirement that the prisoner serve the sentence imposed until this condition is performed, is a condition precedent, and until it is satisfied the pardon is inoperative. Huff v. Aldredge, 192 Ga. 12 (14 S. E. 2d, 456). Where no time for fulfilment of the condition precedent is stipulated in the pardon, the law requires that it be satisfied within a reasonable time. 13 C. J. 684, § 776; 20 R. C. L. 569, § 58.

2. Though a provision in a pardon reserving to the Governor authority to determine if the conditions are performed and to revoke the pardon clothes the Governor with power to act on such matters, yet this power of the Governor does not oust the courts of jurisdiction in the determination of the same questions. Muckle v. Clarke, 191 Ga. 202 (12 S. E. 2d, 339); Huff v. Aldredge, supra.

3. On the trial of a habeas-corpus case the prisoner is afforded a full hearing on whether or not he has satisfied the conditions of a pardon, and this satisfies the due process guaranteed to him by the constitution. Muckle v. Clarke, supra.

4. While under the Code, § 20-1105, a proper tender of the fine would be equivalent to its payment, yet when such tender is made after the time which the law allows for paying the fine, it does not have the effect of payment. Jarman v. Westbrook, 134 Ga. 19 (67 S. E. 403).

5. Under the foregoing rulings, the judgment remanding the prisoner to the custody of the law was authorized by the law and evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. *483 Claud F. Brackett and Lewis H. Fowler, for plaintiff. John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, Bond Almand, solicitor, and Durwood T. Fye, for defendant.

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

Related

Randall v. State
36 S.E.2d 450 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1945)
Muckle v. Aldredge
20 S.E.2d 79 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1942)
Derricott v. Aldredge
16 S.E.2d 561 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 S.E.2d 718, 192 Ga. 482, 1941 Ga. LEXIS 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pappas-v-aldredge-ga-1941.