Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Ga. 430

Townsend v. E. B. Stoddard & Co.

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided August 15, 1858

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1858-08-15

Complaint and Bail. In whitfield Superior Court. Decision by Judge Trippe, at April Term, 1858. E. B. Stoddard’ & Co. sued out bail process against William S. Townsend, returnable to April Term, 1S58, of Whitfield Superior Court. At the term to which the writ was returnable, counsel for Stoddard & Co. moved that the Sheriff and his securities “be deemed and stand as special bail,” he having failed to take bonds for defendant’s appearance as required by law in such cases.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1858-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1907

3 state decisions

10185818601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*431By the Court.

McDonald J.

¶2delivering the opinion.

¶3[1.] The Sheriff showed no cause against the rule to make him and his sureties special bail for the defendant, and having been in default in this respect, as appears by the recital in the order absolute making them special bail.

¶4[2.] In regard to (he motion to amend the declaration and process, it is sufficient to say that they were both amendable by statute.

¶5The time of holding the Court had been but recently changed when the process was issued, and the Acts had not been published; yet, as the Legislature had made no provision for process issued during the time intervening the passing of the Act and its publication, it must be considered that the defendant was required, by the process, to appear at a time different from that fixed by the law. But he appeared at the legal time of holding the Court, and at which the process ought to have required him to appear, and actually by his counsel moved in the cause. The Court heard his motion and decided upon and ordered both declaration and process to be amended. The decision is in harmony with the spirit of the statute of amendrhents, and the defendant is in no manner prejudiced by it. In fact, his appearancej was a waiver of defects and errors in the process calling him to the Court.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/26/ga/430 · .json · Public domain