Brown & Carmichael v. Way & TayLor
Supreme Court of Georgia
Motion to discharge bail, in Sumter Superior Court. Decided by Judge Allen, at October Term, 1861. This was an action brought by Way & Taylor against Brown & Carmichael to recover the sum of $11,827 70, alleged to be due by account. The action was commenced on the 21st January, 1858, in which bail was required by the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Motion to discharge bail, in Sumter Superior Court. Decided by Judge Allen, at October Term, 1861. This was an action brought by Way & Taylor against Brown & Carmichael to recover the sum of $11,827 70, alleged to be due by account. The action was commenced on the 21st January, 1858, in which bail was required by the plaintiffs. In the writ Brown was described as a resident of Sumter county, and Carmichael as a resident of Dougherty county. • Brown being absent, was not arrested under the bail process, but was served by leaving- a copy at his most notorious place of abode. Carmichael…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. —
Jenkins, J., delivering the opinion.
It is unnecessary to consider any but the third ground upon which the motion to discharge the bail pendente lite was predicated, viz: “ that the bail process pendente lite, was not signed by the Clerk.”
Process is a mandatory precept, issuing from a Court. The mandate is set forth in the body of the instrument, which we call a process, and this may be printed, or written out by any scrivener, but it is the signature of the proper officer which gives it efficacy. From the instrument itself, the person to *192whom it is addressed, or who is .to be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lowrey v. Richmond & Danville RailroadSupreme Court of Georgia · 1889
- Hall v. Young L. G. Harris CollegeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1928
- Sampson v. Georgia Department of Juvenile JusticeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2014