Legal Opinion · Concurrence

U. S. Bonds v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 20, 1997No. A96A2314, A96A2315Published

1ConcurrenceBeasley, Judge

I concur because, in this case of statutory construction, it is apparent that the legislature provided the specific time frame for the execution in order to give the surety a reasonable opportunity to find the principal. This purpose is evident from the statutory right of at least 120 days but no more than 150 days. The specificity is in accordance with the principle that “[a] surety on a criminal bond or recognizance has the right to insist that his liability should be fixed upon him according to law. [Cit.]” Griffin v. State of Ga., 194 Ga. App. 624, 625 (2) (391 SE2d 675) (1990). Thus over…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. AAA BONDING COMPANY v. State of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989
  2. Griffin v. State of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1990
  3. Ace Bonding Co. v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1986
  4. Kwik Bond v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API