O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 17-6-73 (2019)

Address of principal and surety on bond or recognizance

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Every bond or recognizance given to secure the appearance of any person in any criminal proceeding shall have entered thereon the mailing address of the principal and each surety.

History

Code 1981, § 17-6-73, enacted by Ga. L. 1982, p. 1224, § 2.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Bond without surety’s address is valid. - Although the language of the statute requires that the surety’s address be included on the bond, that language is directory, and a bond which does not include the surety’s address is enforceable against the surety. Jam Bonding Co. v. State, 184 Ga. App. 246, 361 S.E.2d 238 (1987).

Purpose of the address requirement is to facilitate identifying and locating the surety, and the absence of the address does not in and of itself affect the validity of the bond contract. Jam Bonding Co. v. State, 184 Ga. App. 246, 361 S.E.2d 238 (1987).

ARTICLE 4 BONDS FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR AND TO KEEP THE PEACE PART 1 BONDS FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR JUDICIAL DECISIONS Proceedings under bond provisions are criminal or quasi-criminal in nature, and the statute’s provisions therefore must be construed in favor of the

individual against whom the statutes are applied. Dukes v. Dukes, 119 Ga. App. 842, 168 S.E.2d 902 (1969).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1987–1987 · leading case: Jam Bonding Co. v. State, 361 S.E.2d 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jam Bonding Co. v. State, 361 S.E.2d 238 (Ga. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4× “Appellant was present at the hearing and objected, contending that the bond contract did not comply with OCGA § 17-6-73 because it did not contain appellant’s mailing address.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.