Case Name: Jones et al. v. American Tire Company of Buckhead, Inc.
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1954-03-09
Citations: 210 Ga. 497
Docket Number: 18480
Parties: Jones et al. v. American Tire Company of Buckhead, Inc.
Judges: All the Justices concur. Duckworth, C. J., and Hawkins, J., concur only in the judgment.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 210
Pages: 497–497

Head Matter:
18480.
Jones et al. v. American Tire Company of Buckhead, Inc.
Submitted February 9, 1954
Decided March 9, 1954
Rehearing denied March 23, 1954.
J. E. B. Stewart, for plaintiffs in error.
Charles W. Bergman, G. Seals Aiken, contra.
On the former appearance of this case (Jones v. American Tire Co. of Buckhead, 210 Ga. 110, 78 S. E. 2d 25), it was held that the petition stated a cause of action for the appointment of a receiver and injunctive relief as against the general demurrers. Subsequently to the order overruling the demurrers (May 20, 1953), the judge of the superior court passed an order wherein it was recited that, it appearing to the court that the defendants had posted a bond to indemnify the plaintiff, the receivership was dissolved upon the payment of certain receivership fees. Thereafter the judge of the superior court entered a judgment against the principals and the surety named in the bond, without the intervention of a jury, and the exception is to that judgment.

Opinion:
Head, Justice.
1. "The court, at the term at which the case is returnable, shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases founded on unconditional contracts in writing where an issuable defense is not filed under oath or affirmation on or before the appearance day as to such case, and where the case is still in default." Ga. L. 1946, p. 779 (Code, Ann. Supp., § 110-406).
2. The bond made to dissolve the receivership is not specified as a part of the record and is not before this court. In the absence of some proof to the contrary, it must be presumed that such bond conformed to the requirements of the law and was, therefore,- an unconditional contract in writing. There being no issuable defense to the unconditional contract in writing executed by the plaintiffs in error, the court did not err in rendering judgment without the intervention of a jury.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concur. Duckworth, C. J., and Hawkins, J., concur only in the judgment.