Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448In every case of application for a writ of ne exeat, the complaining party shall show that no adequate remedy is afforded at law, and that the defendant is removing or about to remove himself, his property, or the specific property to which the complainant claims title or an interest.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 3148; Code 1868, § 3160; Code 1873, § 3227; Code 1882, § 3227; Civil Code 1895, § 4887; Civil Code 1910, § 5460; Code 1933, § 37-1402.)
A statutory bond must follow closely the statute, and if the provisions of the bond so vary from those prescribed by the statute as to increase the risk of the securities the bond is not binding on them. August v. August, 65 Ga. App. 883, 16 S.E.2d 784 (1941).
If the application for the issuance of the writ of ne exeat is made in connection with an application for alimony, and no removal of property is involved, but merely an intended leaving of the state by the defendant, the judge ought not to require a bond conditioned both that the defendant will not remove beyond the jurisdictional limits of the state, and also that he will pay any judgment that may be found against him in favor of the plaintiff. This would not only require the husband to give security that he would remain in the jurisdiction, but also that he would be solvent and pay the money judgment. August v. August, 65 Ga. App. 883, 16 S.E.2d 784 (1941).
- Sometimes the writ of ne exeat is issued only to restrain a person from leaving the jurisdiction of the state; sometimes it is issued against a person who is removing, or attempting to remove, property beyond the jurisdiction. August v. August, 65 Ga. App. 883, 16 S.E.2d 784 (1941).
Danger of loss will be inferred from the fact alone that the defendant resides out of the state. McGehee v. Polk, 24 Ga. 406 (1858).
Declarations by the defendant that he intended to leave, followed by an answer that he did not then intend to leave, will not prevent the issuance of the writ. Conyers v. Gray, 67 Ga. 329 (1881).
But the writ issues only when the party cannot be held to bail at law. Hannahan v. Nichols, 17 Ga. 77 (1855).
And it will be dissolved where there is other appropriate relief. Hawthorn v. Kelly, 30 Ga. 965 (1860).
A ne exeat bond, as provided for by this section, is one for the personal appearance of the defendant at court; and the conditions of the bond are complied with when the principal is present at court, or within its jurisdiction and subject to its process. August v. August, 65 Ga. App. 883, 16 S.E.2d 784 (1941).
If the condition of a bail bond is more onerous than to compel the appearance of the principal defendant, it is illegal and void. August v. August, 65 Ga. App. 883, 16 S.E.2d 784 (1941).
- 6 Am. Jur. 2d, Attachment and Garnishment, § 4.
- 30 C.J.S., Equity, § 77. 65 C.J.S., Ne Exeat, § 8.
No results found for Georgia Code 23-3-21.