Walker v. Royster Guano Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Walker v. Royster Guano Co.

78 S.E. 478, 12 Ga. App. 804, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 760

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 10, 1913

Docket4809

StatusPublished

This text of 78 S.E. 478 (Walker v. Royster Guano 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

Walker v. Royster Guano Co., 78 S.E. 478, 12 Ga. App. 804, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 760 (Ga. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell, J.

The case is one of a suit on a forthcoming .bond. The only point insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error (the defendant) is that the record nowhere shows that the plaintiff had obtained a judgment in the claim case finding the property subject. Of course, the plaintiff would not be entitled to a judgment upon the forthcoming bond unless he had, precedent thereto, obtained a judgment finding the property subject. The fact that the plaintiff in error stakes his case upon this point, and challenges the record to support his contention, is due merely to a typographical error in the record; for it appears, from the answer of the magistrate, that there was a judgment finding the property subject, anterior to the judgment of which complaint is here made. In the answer it appears that “the transcript introduced should a verdict and judgment finding the property subject the objection and my overruling it ,are true.” It is very apparent from the exhibits [805]*805attached to the petition for certiorari that this sentence should read “The transcript introduced showed a verdict and judgment finding the property subject. The objection [alluding to the petition] and my overruling it are true.” The tr-anscript from the justice’s docket in the record does in fact show a verdict and judgment in full; consequently the judge of the superior court did not err 'in overruling the certiorari for the reason urged by plaintiff in error, nor was the judgment erroneous for any other reason disclosed by the record. Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell, J.

The case is one of a suit on a forthcoming .bond. The only point insisted upon in the brief of counsel for the plaintiff in error (the defendant) is that the record nowhere shows that the plaintiff had obtained a judgment in the claim case finding the property subject. Of course, the plaintiff would not be entitled to a judgment upon the forthcoming bond unless he had, precedent thereto, obtained a judgment finding the property subject. The fact that the plaintiff in error stakes his case upon this point, and challenges the record to support his contention, is due merely to a typographical error in the record; for it appears, from the answer of the magistrate, that there was a judgment finding the property subject, anterior to the judgment of which complaint is here made. In the answer it appears that “the transcript introduced should a verdict and judgment finding the property subject the objection and my overruling it ,are true.” It is very apparent from the exhibits [805]*805attached to the petition for certiorari that this sentence should read “The transcript introduced showed a verdict and judgment finding the property subject. The objection [alluding to the petition] and my overruling it are true.” The tr-anscript from the justice’s docket in the record does in fact show a verdict and judgment in full; consequently the judge of the superior court did not err 'in overruling the certiorari for the reason urged by plaintiff in error, nor was the judgment erroneous for any other reason disclosed by the record. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E. 478, 12 Ga. App. 804, 1913 Ga. App. LEXIS 760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walker-v-royster-guano-co-gactapp-1913.