Case Name: TUCKER vs. DAVIDSON
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1859-06
Citations: 28 Ga. 535
Docket Number: 
Parties: TUCKER vs. DAVIDSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 535–537

Head Matter:
TUCKER vs. DAVIDSON.
1. A ca. sa. bond is intended only to secure the appearance of the debtor. If he surrenders himself at court or is delivered up by the sureties, the bond is discharged.
2. A ca. sa. bond, with a condition, “ that the debtor appear and abide by and perfotm the judgment of the court in the premises,” is a valid bond.
3. A ca. sa. bond payable to the sheriff instead of the plaintiff, is good; and the court will compel the officer to assign the same.
A capias ad satisfaciendum issued from the superior court of Baker county at the instance of William H. Davidson, against Walter B. Mason. He was arrested by plaintiff in error, the deputy sheriff, who took a bond conditioned for bis appearance “ at the superior court to be held in and for said county, on the second Monday in May next, then and there to abide such other and further decree or .order of said court as may be made in the premises.”
At the May Term, 1859, counsel for plaintiff in ca. sa. took a rule nisi against the deputy sheriff to show cause why he should not pay over to plaintiff the amount of principal and interest due on said ca. sa., on the ground that the bond taken of defendant was not in conformity with the statute in such case made and provided, in this, first, that it was made payable 'to the sheriff; secondly, that the condition was not in pursuance of the statute, and was such that no judgment could be entered against the principal and his surety for a breach thereof.
It appeared that the defendant did not appear at the term to which the ca. sa. was returnable, and that he filed no schedule nor gave any notice or took any steps to take the benefit of the Honest or Insolvent Debtor’s Act.
Upon hearing the answer of the deputy sheriff, and after argument, the' court made the rule absolute, and defendant ‘excepted.
Strozier & Smith, for plaintiff in error.
Lyon, Irvin & Butler, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Lumpkin, J.,
delivering the opinion.
Was the court right in holding that the bond taken by the deputy sheriff in this case, was void and compelling the officer to pay the debt ? We think not.
A ca. sa. bond is intended only to secure the appearance of the defendant. If he surrenders himself at court, or is delivered by Ms securities, tbe bond is discharged. This bond obligated tbe debtor to appear and abide by and perform tbe judgment of tbe court in tbe premises. If be failed to appear, as he did, the condition of the bond was broken, and the securities were liable. Had be appeared and failed to get a discharge under tbe insolvent debtor's act, fhe would have been ordered into custody, there to remain until tbe debt was paid, or at least until a full surrender was made of all his effects. The securities, in tbe mean time, would be exonerated. "We repeat, then, that tbe undertaking of tbe securities is for tbe appearance of tbe principal, and nothing more.
As to tbe bond being payable to tbe sheriff instead of tbe plaintiff in ca. sa., the sheriff takes the bond for the benefit of tbe creditor. He could be compelled by tbe court to assign. Here be voluntarily offered to do so.
Judgment l'eversed.