Peyton v. Peyton

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Peyton v. Peyton

120 S.E. 689, 31 Ga. App. 470, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 987

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 10, 1923

Docket14752

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 120 S.E. 689 (Peyton v. Peyton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peyton v. Peyton, 120 S.E. 689, 31 Ga. App. 470, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 987 (Ga. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, J.

1. Wliere an attachment was sued out by Tom Peyton Jr. against Tom Peyton Sr., and the attachment bond was executed by the fórmelas principal and P. T. Reynolds as security, but the name of the latter was inadvertently written also in the body of the bond as the obligee, where the name of the defendant in attachment should have appeared, it was not error for the court to allow the name of P. T. Reynolds in the body of the bond to be stricken and the name of the defendant Tom Peyton Sr. substituted therefor as the obligee, by amendment, the security consenting thereto. Civil Code (1910), § 5110; Long v. Hood, 46 Ga. 225 (2); Sutherlin v. Underwriter’s Agency, 53 Ga. 443 (1). Cf. Civil Code (1910), § 5707; Gelders v. Mathews, 6 Ga. App. 144 (64 S. E. 576); Sherman v. Morris, 17 Ga. App. 446 (1) (87 S. E. 709); Fine v. Frankel Clothing Co., 22 Ga. App. 404 (95 S. E. 1017); Lee v. Mills, 69 Ga. 740 (1); Smith v. Powell, 134 Ga. 356 (67 S. E. 936); Barley v. Horton, 149 Ga. 605 (1) (101 S. E. 680).

2. The evidence on the trial of the traverse of the grounds of the attachment and upon the main case was sufficient to authorize each verdict as rendered in favor of the plaintiff in attachment, and, no error of law appearing, the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens-, J., concur.

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

Bell, J.

1. Wliere an attachment was sued out by Tom Peyton Jr. against Tom Peyton Sr., and the attachment bond was executed by the fórmelas principal and P. T. Reynolds as security, but the name of the latter was inadvertently written also in the body of the bond as the obligee, where the name of the defendant in attachment should have appeared, it was not error for the court to allow the name of P. T. Reynolds in the body of the bond to be stricken and the name of the defendant Tom Peyton Sr. substituted therefor as the obligee, by amendment, the security consenting thereto. Civil Code (1910), § 5110; Long v. Hood, 46 Ga. 225 (2); Sutherlin v. Underwriter’s Agency, 53 Ga. 443 (1). Cf. Civil Code (1910), § 5707; Gelders v. Mathews, 6 Ga. App. 144 (64 S. E. 576); Sherman v. Morris, 17 Ga. App. 446 (1) (87 S. E. 709); Fine v. Frankel Clothing Co., 22 Ga. App. 404 (95 S. E. 1017); Lee v. Mills, 69 Ga. 740 (1); Smith v. Powell, 134 Ga. 356 (67 S. E. 936); Barley v. Horton, 149 Ga. 605 (1) (101 S. E. 680).

2. The evidence on the trial of the traverse of the grounds of the attachment and upon the main case was sufficient to authorize each verdict as rendered in favor of the plaintiff in attachment, and, no error of law appearing, the court did not err in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Jenkins, P. J., and Stephens-, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 S.E. 689, 31 Ga. App. 470, 1923 Ga. App. LEXIS 987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peyton-v-peyton-gactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack