Hill v. Hudspeth
Supreme Court of Georgia
Appeal from Ordinary, in Baker Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, May Term, 1857. This was an appeal from the Ordinary of Baker county. Upon the case being called for trial, counsel for respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the appellant had not given bond and security as required by law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Ordinary, in Baker Superior Court. Decision by Judge Allen, May Term, 1857. This was an appeal from the Ordinary of Baker county. Upon the case being called for trial, counsel for respondent moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the appellant had not given bond and security as required by law. It appeared that instead of giving bond and security, the appellant had paid all the cost that had accrued, and deposited with the Ordinary a sum of money, sufficient to pay all future cost. " The Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal; and appellant excepted. Before the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the. Court.
Benning, J.
delivering the opinion.
It is very doubtful whether the appeal was not sufficient as it stood.
All that the statute requires of the appellant is, to give “security.” Cobb’s Dig. 283. The word used is security, not surety, and the word, strictly taken, means not a person — a person who becomes bound for another, but a thing, such a *622thing, as a bond, a promissory note, a mortgage, a pawn, a deposite of money.
Sufficient money was deposited in this case to secure the appellee. If, therefore, the word “security,” in the statute, is to be taken strictly, this appeal was good.
I…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Maddox v. WaldropCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1939
- Whitson v. McNutt & Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Hunter v. LanierCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
- Peppers v. PeppersCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
- Ausmus v. StevensCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.