Cox v. Dorsey
Supreme Court of Georgia
The Court of Appeals propounded to this court the following questions (in Case No. 11671) : “ This was a suit to forfeit a bail-bond given in a criminal case. The recognizance provided that the principal therein should personally be and appear at the municipal court of Columbus on a named day, “to answer an accusation; indictment, for the offense of misdemeanor.”
Read the full summary
The Court of Appeals propounded to this court the following questions (in Case No. 11671) : “ This was a suit to forfeit a bail-bond given in a criminal case. The recognizance provided that the principal therein should personally be and appear at the municipal court of Columbus on a named day, “to answer an accusation; indictment, for the offense of misdemeanor.” The petition to forfeit the recognizance showed that on the day named therein for the appearance of the accused in the municipal court of Columbus, to answer to the charge of misdemeanor, the only accusation against him pending in…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam
1. Under the facts stated in the question, the term “ accusation ” in the recognizance is broad enough to include the term “warrant.” See Cleveland v. Brown, 141 Ga. 829 (82 S. E. 243); Foole v. Gordon, 87 Ga. 277 (13 S E. 512).
2. Accordingly it should be presumed that the obligors in the bail-bond understood when they executed it that the term “ accusation ” therein referred to a “ warrant.”
All the Justices concur, except
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Foote v. GordonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Cleveland v. BrownSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cox v. DorseyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1922