Rowell v. Southern Railway Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Rowell v. Southern Railway Co.

80 S.E. 25, 14 Ga. App. 29, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 396

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 25, 1913

Docket5096

StatusPublished

This text of 80 S.E. 25 (Rowell v. Southern Railway Co.) 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

Rowell v. Southern Railway Co., 80 S.E. 25, 14 Ga. App. 29, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 396 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Roan, J.

In the superior court a motion to dismiss the certiorari was made, on the ground that no bond had been given as required by law, it being contended that the bond given, which stated that it was “for the eventual condemnation and all future costs,” was vitiated by the omission of the word “money” after the word “condemnation,” — that the obligation as it stood was merely to pay the costs that might accrue. This motion was properly overruled. It is evident that the omission was a mere clerical error. The intention of the parties signing the bond could not have been other than to hold themselves liable for the eventual condemnation money and all costs. It was a suit for money and nothing else, and the condemnation, if any, must have been for money and nothing else. Judgment affirmed.

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

Roan, J.

In the superior court a motion to dismiss the certiorari was made, on the ground that no bond had been given as required by law, it being contended that the bond given, which stated that it was “for the eventual condemnation and all future costs,” was vitiated by the omission of the word “money” after the word “condemnation,” — that the obligation as it stood was merely to pay the costs that might accrue. This motion was properly overruled. It is evident that the omission was a mere clerical error. The intention of the parties signing the bond could not have been other than to hold themselves liable for the eventual condemnation money and all costs. It was a suit for money and nothing else, and the condemnation, if any, must have been for money and nothing else. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 S.E. 25, 14 Ga. App. 29, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowell-v-southern-railway-co-gactapp-1913.