Court Opinion

ID: 9865675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 19:21:58.550939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:11.264188
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
The defendant in error says in her motion for rehearing that this court overlooked certain objections made by her counsel to the amendment offered by the plaintiff in error, in which she endeavored to attach a copy of the power of attorney to the appeal bond and to show that it was in force when the bond was signed. The first of these objections was that the power of attorney limited the authority of the agent, making it impossible for him to execute a valid cost bond, because of the provision therein that the liability of the company as surety in no one instance should exceed $25,000. We do not think that this limitation invalidated the power of attorney. Where the appellant deposited with the ordinary “sufficient money (the amount not appearing) to pay *183any future costs that might accrue in the case,” it was held that, if the appeal was not sufficient, it was amendable. Hill v. Hudspeth, 22 Ga. 621 (supra). Furthermore, if the security on an appeal bond is insufficient, the appellee has a remedy whereby the security may be strengthened under the Code, § 24-3301, which provides that, if exceptions to the security on appeal are sustained, "other and good security shall be given or the appeal shall be dismissed.”
The second objection to the amendment was upon the ground that the power of attorney stated that it was subject to revocation, and there was no showing that it had not been revoked at the time the- bond was signed by the agent. This objection was without merit, because whether or not the power of attorney had been revoked was defensive matter, and in the absence of a showing of a revocation, the power of attorney was presumed to be in force. Furthermore, the appellant offered to prove by oral testimony that the signer of the bond was the agent of the surety company, and that the power of attorney under which he acted was in full force and effect when the bond was signed.
The next objection to the amendment was on the ground that at the time the bond was signed there was another power of attorney outstanding, which revoked the authority of the agent to execute cost bonds for his principal. This too was matter of defense, and did not constitute a valid objection to the amendment seeking to attach a certified copy of the power of attorney to the appeal bond. The evidence offered by the appellant,. in connection with the amendment showing that the power of attorney was in force when the bond was signed, applies to this objection also.
For the reasons stated in the opinion, the other contentions urged in grounds 2 and 3 of the motion for rehearing are not meritorious and do not require further consideration or elaboration. Rehearing denied.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.