Carlan v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
Carlan v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York and vice versa
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Rtjsseh, Chief Justice.
1. The sheriff of A county and his official bondsman are liable to be sued on such a bond in B county, for an alleged wrongful act committed in A county, under color of his office, where the bonding company has an office, agent, and place of doing business in B county.
*716 No. 11608. January 14, 1937. Hamilton Ilimzey, Herbert B. Ilimzey, and Owen •& Gross, for plaintiff. J. 8. Ayers, Clifford Pratt, and O. M. McClure, for defendant.
2. In such a case it is not necessary to allege or prove that the. bonding company is not a resident of or subject to be sued in A county.
3. The sheriff and his bondsman are such joint contractors or obligors that they may be sued in the county of the residence of either, for a violation of the bond; and the right to sue the sheriff on his official bond for wrongful acts committed under color of his office is not limited to the county where he lives and which he serves, on the ground of public policy. See Code, §§ 3-204, 56-601; Lumpkin v. Calloway, 101 Ga. 226 ( 28 S. E. 622 ); Mumford v. Solomon, 8 Ga. App. 286 (46) ( 68 S. E. 1075 ); Morris v. George, 3 Ga. App. 413 ( 59 S. E. 1116 ), and cit.; National Surety Co. v. Seymour, 46 Ga. App. 109 ( 166 S. E. 777 ); Gross v. Butler, 48 Ga. App. 750 ( 173 S. E. 866 ); American Surety Co. v. Smallon, 54 Ga. App. 45 ( 186 S. E. 892 ).
All the Justices concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.