Case Name: William B. Shaver, plaintiff in error, vs. Mack W. McLendon, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1858-06
Citations: 26 Ga. 228
Docket Number: 
Parties: William B. Shaver, plaintiff in error, vs. Mack W. McLendon, defendant in error.
Judges: Lumpkin J. concurring.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 228–230

Head Matter:
William B. Shaver, plaintiff in error, vs. Mack W. McLendon, defendant in error.
By mistake, a forthcoming bond was made payable to James B. Shaver instead of to TVm. B. Shaver.
IMA, That Wm. B. Shaver might sue at law on the bond, and show the mistake there. — Bekniho .T.
Suit on bond, from Marion. Tried before Judge Worrell, March Term, 1S58.
This was an action of debt on a bond. The plaintiff, Wm. B. Shaver, had obtained execution in a Justices Court against A. J. Simmons, James M. Adams and James M. Davis, and had it levied upon a bale of cotton. A claim was interposed by one Sidney B. Simmons to said cotton,-and through mis-1 take, the bond for the forthcoming of the same, was made payable to James B. Shaver, when it was the intention tó make it payable to the plaintiff in fi. fa. The claim was tried, and the cotton found subject to the fi. fa; and the sale again advertised, when the property was not forthcoming to satisfy the demand of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff then brought suit on the bond, and offered on the trial in evidence, the bond made payable as before stated ; and further proposed to prove, that the same was made payable to said James B. Shaver by mistake; and that said James B. had no execution in said Court; and also offered said fi. fa. in favor of plaintiff, together with the claim; the verdict of the jury finding the property subject to the fi. fa; also the judgment of the Court on the verdict, and also to prove by the constable levying the fi. fa., that he advertised said property, and that the same was not forthcoming, and also the value of said property levied on; to all of which testimony the defendant’s counsel objected, upon the ground that it was an attempt to correct said bond, and if the plaintiff had any remedy, it was in a Court of Equity.
Which objection the Court sustained, and on motion dis missed plaintiff’s action; whereupon, plaintiff by his counsel excepted, and assigns the same as error.
Branford & Crawford, for plaintiff in error.
Davis & Hudson, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Benning J.
delivering the opinion.
It is admitted on all hands, that the plaintiff might recover on this bond and his offered proof, in equity. But what is there to prevent him from doing so in like manner at law.
I think, there is nothing. "Whenever" "a plaintiff or complainant shall conceive, that he she or they, can establish his her or their claim, without resorting to the conscience of the defendant, it shall and may be lawful for every such plaintiff or complainant, to institute his her or their action upon the common law side of the Court, and shall not be held to proceed with the forms of equity; any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding." Cobb Dig. 464.
This, as it seems to me, is an authority to the plaintiff to proceed at law in this case. I therefore, think that the Court erred in not admitting the evidence, to the mistake.
Judgment reversed.
Lumpkin J. concurring.