Officer with claim should present itemized statement of costs.

- Law contemplates that an officer having a claim against an insolvent costs fund should present an itemized statement of costs before being approved. Cooper v. Lunsford, 203 Ga. 166, 45 S.E.2d 395 (1947).

Claims of officers for costs due in transferred cases.

- Officers of the superior court have no lien or claim on account of insolvent costs due the officers in cases transferred from the superior to the county court, upon fines in the county treasury arising in the county upon other cases transferred from the superior court. Hardwick v. Burke, 113 Ga. 999, 39 S.E. 433 (1901).

All fines imposed required to be paid over to county treasurer.

- All fines imposed by a judge of the county court upon persons convicted of a violation of the laws of this state are required to be paid over to the county treasurer. Overstreet v. Rawlings, 106 Ga. 793, 32 S.E. 855 (1899).

No provision authorizing payment of fees from fund if defendant able to pay costs.

- Officers of the court are entitled to receive their fees from the fine and forfeiture fund in cases when the defendants have been acquitted, or when the persons liable by law for the payment of the costs are unable to pay the costs; but there is no provision of law authorizing the payment of these fees from this fund in cases when the convicted defendant is able to pay the costs. Pound v. Faulkner, 193 Ga. 413, 18 S.E.2d 749 (1942).

Effect of valid order approving cost list.

- If three different judges of the superior court approved an itemized bill of cost claimed by officers of the court presenting the bill for approval, in order to nullify the approval thus made, all three orders approving the cost list would have to be invalid; and if any one of the orders is a valid order, the other two could be disregarded as the cost list thus approved would still stand approved. Banks County v. Stark, 212 Ga. 283, 92 S.E.2d 11 (1956).

Order of court for costs is special judgment.

- While an order of a court for insolvent costs is a judgment when placed on the minutes of the court, it is not such a judgment as contemplated under former Code 1933, §§ 110-1001, 110-1002 and 110-1003 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 9-12-60 and9-12-61). Walden v. Bale, 78 Ga. App. 226, 50 S.E.2d 844 (1948).

Cited in Lumpkin County v. Davis, 185 Ga. 393, 195 S.E. 169 (1938); Walden v. Camp, 206 Ga. 593, 58 S.E.2d 175 (1950).

Duties of those collecting fines and forfeitures.

- For a discussion of the respective duties of the prosecuting attorney, sheriff, and clerk of court in the collection of fines and forfeitures in criminal cases, see 1983 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U83-62 (rendered prior to 1984 amendment of § 15-21-2).

Payment of forfeited bonds into county treasury.

- Funds from bond forfeiture cannot be used to compensate prosecuting witness in bad check case; such funds must be paid into the county treasury and administered in accordance with former Code 1933, §§ 27-2902, 27-2904, and 27-2905 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-21-2,15-21-3, and15-21-5). 1970 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U70-197.

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 21A Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 874 et seq. 36 Am. Jur. 2d, Forfeitures and Penalties, § 15 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 36A C.J.S., Fines, §§ 2, 19. 37 C.J.S., Forfeitures, §§ 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 et seq, 39, 41. 80 C.J.S., Sheriffs and Constables, §§ 268 et seq., 281.

ALR.

- Exception as regards payments to officers of court to rule preventing recovery back of payments made under mistake of law, 111 A.L.R. 637.