Morel v. Sylvania & G.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1910
• Citation: 68 S.E. 588,134 Ga. 687
• Parties: MOREL et al. v. SYLVANIA & G. R. CO. et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

68 S.E. 588

134 Ga. 687

MOREL et al. v. SYLVANIA & G. R. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia

June 28, 1910

Syllabus by the Court.

The petition was not open to general demurrer, as it set forth a cause of action for the breach of a supersedeas bond.

Error from Superior Court, Screven County; B. L. Rawlings, Judge.

Action by the Sylvania & Girard Railroad Company and others against J. J. B. Morel and others. A demurrer to the petition was overruled, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.

J. W Overstreet, for plaintiffs in error.

White & Lovett, for defendants in error.

FISH C.J. (after stating the facts as above).

Fairly construed, we understand the petition to mean that the defendants, after a judgment had been rendered against them declaring that they were illegally holding the books, money and property of the railroad company and ought to deliver them to the plaintiffs in the former proceeding, brought the case to this court, retained possession of the money and property, gave the bond above indicated in order that they might do so pending the exception to this court, and by virtue of the possession thus retained salaries were paid to the acting president and acting superintendents, who were no longer acting officers of the corporation, and that this was done without the authority of the railroad company. There was no special demurrer, but the defendants relied solely upon a general demurrer. If an illegal appropriation of the funds of the corporation to pay the salaries of persons acting as officers of the corporation, who were no longer lawfully in office, as had been declared by the judgment of the court pending an exception to this court, did not fall within the terms of the bond, it is not easy to see just what damages were intended by the presiding judge in requiring it, or by the parties in giving it. According to the allegations of the plaintiffs in the present case, a person claiming to be the president of the company, but who had ceased to be such, and other defendants, held the money of the company in their possession while the case was in this court by virtue of the supersedeas bond given, and while the matter was in that condition some of the funds of the company were appropriated, or caused to be appropriated, to the payment of salaries to some of the defendants, who were not entitled thereto. The judgment of the superior court was affirmed, by which it had been directed that the defendants deliver up the books, money, and property of the company; but, pending exception, some of it had been appropriated to salaries for some of the defendants who had been found to be out of office. The present petition alleges that this was without authority of the corporation and contrary to its authority. We think that this makes a case of damages falling within the purpose and intent of the...