Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Reserve Life Ins. Co.

Citation83 S.E.2d 66,90 Ga.App. 332
Decision Date07 July 1954
Docket NumberNo. 2,No. 35220,35220,2
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
PartiesBANK OF AMERICA NAT. TRUST & SAVINGS ASS'N v. RESERVE LIFE INS. CO. et al

Head & Hanna, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

James W. Schell, Wright, Oxford & Love, Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

CARLISLE, Judge.

On April 21, 1953, a Deputy Marshal of the Civil Court of Fulton County, under an attachment sued out by Reserve Life Insurance Company against T. J. Hubbard, levied on a described Cadillac automobile which was pointed out by the attorneys for the plaintiff in attachment as the property of the defendant in attachment and found in his possession. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association interposed its claim to the automobile. On June 4, 1953, the issue made by the claim proceeded to trial, and after the introduction of all the evidence the trial court directed a verdict against the claim and in favor of the plaintiff in attachment. The claimant moved for a new trial on enumerated grounds, and on June 17, 1953, the trial court granted a new trial. The plaintiff in attachment petitioned the Superior Court of Fulton County for writ of certiorari to review the judgment granting the new trial. The petition was sanctioned on July 15, 1953. On July 15, 1953, the trial court certified that all accrued costs had been paid, and on July 20, 1953, attested and approved the certiorari bond. The clerk of the superior court certified that the certiorari bond was filed in that court on July 20, 1953. Notice of sanction and time and place of the hearing were duly served. The trial judge filed his answer to the petition, and the claimant demurred to the petition upon enumerated grounds. The demurrer was overruled; the petition for certiorari was sustained, and the judgment of the trial court granting a new trial was reversed. The present writ of error has been brought to this court to have those judgments of the superior court reviewed.

1. While it is alleged in the petition for certiorari that exception is taken to the judgment of June 17, 1953, granting a new trial, and it is recited in the writ of certiorari that the judgment complained of is that of June 4, 1953, granting a new trial, this variance is not such as will work a dismissal of the petition for certiorari. This is obviously a clerical error, as the only judgment granting a new trial was that of June 17, 1953, and the trial judge in his answer certifies this to be true by certifying all the allegations of the petition for certiorari to be true. Ground 2 of the demurrer to the petition for certiorari was properly overruled.

2. Ground 3 of the demurrer, in which it is alleged that no valid or lawful bond is shown, will not be considered by this court as this ground does not specify wherein the bond is deficient. Abercrombie v. Gurley, 21 Ga.App. 389(3), 94 S.E. 606.

3. The fact that one of the sureties on the bond prefixed her signature with the title 'Mrs.' does not invalidate the bond as constituting a contract of suretyship with a married woman. Such title does not necessarily import that the person using it is married. Wrightsville & Tennille R. Co. v. Vaughan, 9 Ga.App. 371(1a), 71 S.E. 691. Ground 4 of the demurrer was properly overruled.

4. Where the condition of the bond complies with the provisions of Code, § 19-206, that is, 'to pay the adverse party in the cause the eventual condemnation-money, together with all future costs,' the fact that the bond does not bind the parties to pay a stated penal sum does not vitiate the bond. Westbrook v. Moore, 59 Ga. 204. Ground 5 of the demurrer was properly overruled.

5. The approval and filing of the requisite certiorari bond are conditions precedent to the issuance of the writ of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 8 Julio 1964
    ...29 Ga.App. 261, 114 S.E. 911 (1922); Hosch v. Smith, 31 Ga.App. 91, 119 S.E. 667 (1923); and Bank of America, etc. Assn. v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 90 Ga.App. 332(8), 83 S.E.2d 66 (1954). All of these cases, save the last, were decided prior to the Act of 1931 (Ga.L.1931, p. 153), now found ......
  • State Highway Dept. v. Smith
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 10 Marzo 1965
    ...Dictionary (4th Ed.) 1353. See also McKemie v. McKemie, 76 Ga.App. 212, 45 S.E.2d 456, and Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 90 Ga.App. 332(8), 83 S.E.2d 66. 3. Ordinarily, the right to open and conclude the argument belongs to the plaintiff, and in th......
  • Builders Transport, Inc. v. Hall
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • 1 Junio 1989
    ...trial was an abuse of the trial court's discretion. See id. at 400-403, 129 S.E. 915; see also Bank of America, etc., Assn. v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 90 Ga.App. 332, 333(8), 83 S.E.2d 66 (1954). 2. In Case No. A89A0714, Hall contends the trial court erred by granting partial summary judgmen......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT