Reese v. Brinkley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Reese v. Brinkley

112 S.E. 289, 28 Ga. App. 570, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 706

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 10, 1922

Docket13371

StatusPublished

This text of 112 S.E. 289 (Reese v. Brinkley) 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

Reese v. Brinkley, 112 S.E. 289, 28 Ga. App. 570, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 706 (Ga. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

1. “ In a suit upon a forthcoming bond, the only question to be decided is whether or not there has been a breach of the bond. Ho issue can properly be raised as to the title of the property involved.” McFarland v. Lee, 10 Ga. App. 698 (2) (73 S. E. 1091), and citation.

2. In a suit upon a forthcoming bond, proof that the defendant (the principal on the bond) refused, upon demand, to deliver the property which has been found subject, shows a breach of the bond. This is true although it was recited in the bond that the property wras to be forthcoming at the time and place of sale, and the proof failed to show that the property had been advertised for sale, or that the defendant had failed to produce it at the time and place of sale. Stinson v. Ball, 54 Ga. 676.

[571]*571Decided May 10, 1922.

Complaint; from Warren superior court — Judge Shurley. January 28, 1922.

M. L. Felts, for plaintiff in error. L. D. McGregor, contra.

3. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition, or in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant’s answer.

4. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and none of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows reversible error.

5. This court not being satisfied that the writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay only, the request of the defendant in error for the award of damages is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

1. “ In a suit upon a forthcoming bond, the only question to be decided is whether or not there has been a breach of the bond. Ho issue can properly be raised as to the title of the property involved.” McFarland v. Lee, 10 Ga. App. 698 (2) (73 S. E. 1091), and citation.

2. In a suit upon a forthcoming bond, proof that the defendant (the principal on the bond) refused, upon demand, to deliver the property which has been found subject, shows a breach of the bond. This is true although it was recited in the bond that the property wras to be forthcoming at the time and place of sale, and the proof failed to show that the property had been advertised for sale, or that the defendant had failed to produce it at the time and place of sale. Stinson v. Ball, 54 Ga. 676.

[571]*571Decided May 10, 1922.

Complaint; from Warren superior court — Judge Shurley. January 28, 1922.

M. L. Felts, for plaintiff in error. L. D. McGregor, contra.

3. The court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the petition, or in sustaining the demurrer to the defendant’s answer.

4. The verdict was amply authorized by the evidence, and none of the grounds of the amendment to the motion for a new trial shows reversible error.

5. This court not being satisfied that the writ of error was prosecuted for the purpose of delay only, the request of the defendant in error for the award of damages is denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Luke and Bloodworth, J.J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 S.E. 289, 28 Ga. App. 570, 1922 Ga. App. LEXIS 706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reese-v-brinkley-gactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack