Lichten & Backer v. Mott
Supreme Court of Georgia
Scire facias, in Muscogee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Iverson, May Term, 1851. Lichten & Backer sued out bail process against Benjamin Hurd, and Randolph L. Hurd became his bail. At November Term, 1846, judgment was obtained and a ca. sa. issued against Hurd, returnable to the May Term, 1847. On 2ist of April, •1847, the Sheriff made a return of non est inventus.
Read the full summary
Scire facias, in Muscogee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Iverson, May Term, 1851. Lichten & Backer sued out bail process against Benjamin Hurd, and Randolph L. Hurd became his bail. At November Term, 1846, judgment was obtained and a ca. sa. issued against Hurd, returnable to the May Term, 1847. On 2ist of April, •1847, the Sheriff made a return of non est inventus. On 22d April, 1850, sci.fa. was sued out against Mott, the bail, in which it was .averred that the ca. sa. was returned by the Sheriff, into office;,.cm the 21st April, 1847. On the trial of the sci. fa. defendant (Mott)…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.
delivering the opinion.
Litchten & Backer, a mercantile firm in Columbus, brought suit against Benjamin Hurd, on a promissory note, to which bail process was attached; Randolph Mott became thebondsman ofHurd. After judgment against the principal, and a ca. sa. and return of non est thereon, a sci. fa. was sued out to charge the bail. At the trial, several objections were taken to the proceedings, one of which only, it is necessary to consider. It was alleged in the sci. fa. that the ca. sa. was returned to the Clerk’s office on the 21st day of April, 1847, the day in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Howe v. RansomSupreme Court of Vermont · 1828
- Davitt v. CounselSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1819
3Cited by1 opinion
- Deboard v. BrooksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1859