Supreme Court of Georgia, 1922

Cox v. Dorsey

Cox v. Dorsey
Supreme Court of Georgia · Decided January 12, 1922 · No. 2685 · Gilbert, Hill, Pee
152 Ga. 532; 110 S.E. 236; 1922 Ga. LEXIS 209
Cox v. Dorsey

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion 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

Dissenting Opinion

Hill and Gilbert, JJ.,

dissenting. The undertaking of obligors in a criminal recognizance is stricti juris. They cannot be bound further than the very terms of their contract. Colquitt v. Smith, 65 Ga. 341, 342; Roberts v. Gordon, 86 Ga. 386 (12 S. E. 648).

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.