Poss v. Tudor

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Poss v. Tudor

59 S.E.2d 269, 81 Ga. App. 598, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 950

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 28, 1950

Docket32901

StatusPublished

This text of 59 S.E.2d 269 (Poss v. Tudor) 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

Poss v. Tudor, 59 S.E.2d 269, 81 Ga. App. 598, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 950 (Ga. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinions

Worrill, J.

The only ground of exception made by the bill of exceptions and argued by counsel for the plaintiff in error being that the evidence adduced upon the hearing of this application by the defendant in a bail-trover action for discharge from jail on his own recognizance did not authorize the discharge, and there being evidence authorizing a finding that the applicant did not have the property in his possession at the time the bail process was sued out and that the production of the property was a physical impossibility; that the reasons for the non- ' production of the property were satisfactory; and that the applicant, because of poverty was unable to give the bond or security required by law, the order granting the discharge was authorized. Code, § 107-205; Everett, Ridley & Co. v. Holcomb, 1 Ga. App. 794(1) (58 S. E. 287).

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C.J., concurs. Felton, concurs specially.

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

Worrill, J.

The only ground of exception made by the bill of exceptions and argued by counsel for the plaintiff in error being that the evidence adduced upon the hearing of this application by the defendant in a bail-trover action for discharge from jail on his own recognizance did not authorize the discharge, and there being evidence authorizing a finding that the applicant did not have the property in his possession at the time the bail process was sued out and that the production of the property was a physical impossibility; that the reasons for the non- ' production of the property were satisfactory; and that the applicant, because of poverty was unable to give the bond or security required by law, the order granting the discharge was authorized. Code, § 107-205; Everett, Ridley & Co. v. Holcomb, 1 Ga. App. 794(1) (58 S. E. 287).

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, C.J., concurs. Felton, concurs specially.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 S.E.2d 269, 81 Ga. App. 598, 1950 Ga. App. LEXIS 950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poss-v-tudor-gactapp-1950.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack