Court Opinion

ID: 9585419
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:00:16.632146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:43:53.680571
License: Public Domain

Felton, J.,
dissenting. The recital in the body of the instrument was sufficient if other elements necessary to make the instrument a sealed instrument were present. Humphries v. Nix, 77 Ga. 98. The defendant did not dispute the fact that he signed the bond as surety, nor did he show that he signed as he did to avoid signing under a seal. The simple conclusion is that the surety signed in the wrong place, and that since he does not deny signing as surety, nor that the 'sheriff acted on his signature as such, the signature in law should be treated as if it had been in the right place, and the designation of the capacity as security and the- (SEAL) should be held to attach to the signature at the wrong place in the absence of any evidence showing a contrary intention. Ordinarily, even though the body of an instrument declares the intention to sign under seal, a *572seal or something to take its place is necessary, and cases on the point are too numerous to ■ mention, but those are cases where the parties signed in the proper places. Under the circumstances of this case, the declaration that the instrument was under seal, plus the admission that the signature was in the capacity of surety, demand the finding that the signature was under seal, in the absence of anything to the contrary. I dissent from the judgment of reversal.