O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 5-3-6 (2019)

Appeal by one of several plaintiffs or defendants - Liability and recourse of surety on judgment on appeal

✓ 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

The security, if any, of the party appealing shall be bound for the judgment on the appeal; and, in case the security is compelled to pay off the debt or damages for which judgment is entered in the case, he shall have recourse only against the party for whom he became security. (Laws 1823, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 498; Laws 1839, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, Page: 186 GA RV 13 RV 4(T4-6) - EP Date: 06/14/13 Time: 10:58:26 p. 500; Code 1863, § 3541; Code 1868, § 3564; Code 1873, § 3621; Code 1882, § 3621; Civil Code 1895, § 4463; Civil Code 1910, § 5008; Code 1933, § 6-112.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For survey article on constitutional law, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 53 (1982). JUDICIAL DECISIONS First part of section provides for liability when principal appeals, whether or not surety appeals. Beall v. Cochran, 18 Ga. 38 (1855); Barnett v. Travis, 96 Ga. 760, 22 S.E. 314 (1895); National Sur. Co. v. White, 21 Ga. App. 471, 94 S.E. 589 (1917). Second clause of section grants right of subrogation against principal. National Surety Co. v. White, 21 Ga. App. 471, 94 S.E. 589 (1917). Charging estate of security. - Plaintiff, by scire facias, may charge estate of security on appeal with amount of final judgment rendered against original party. Bank of Charleston v. Moore, 6 Ga. 416 (1849). Plaintiff may charge estate of security

with amount of judgment by entry of judgment nunc pro tunc. Mayo v. Kersey, 24 Ga. 167 (1858). Surety not subject for breach of bond when trial cannot be had as to appellant. - Condemnation money for which surety on appeal is liable is that which is recovered in case on appeal trial. If, by reason of injunction, death, or other cause, no trial of case is or can be had as to appellant, the surety is not subject for a breach of bond. Planters’ & Miners’ Bank v. Hudgins, 84 Ga. 108, 10 S.E. 501 (1889). Cited in Satzky v. King, 115 Ga. 948, 42 S.E. 233 (1902); Bennett v. Farkas, 126 Ga. 228, 54 S.E. 942 (1906); Touchton v. Stewart, 222 Ga. 455, 150 S.E.2d 643 (1966).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 5 Am. Jur. 2d, Appellate Review, § 231 et seq. ALR. - Failure of sureties on appeal bond to justify after exception to their sufficiency and consequent dismissal of appeal, as releasing them from liability, 96 ALR 1371. Liability on supersedeas bond which was legally insufficient to effect stay, where enforcement of judgment was in fact suspended, 120 ALR 1062.

Condition of bond on appeal not in terms covering payment of money judgment, as having that effect by implication or construction, 124 ALR 501. Attorneys’ fees paid by appellee in resisting unsuccessful appellate review as damages recoverable on appeal bond, 37 ALR2d 525.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2025–2026 · leading case: India White v. Aspen Square Mgmt. A/A/F 100 South (Ga. Ct. App. 2025).
India White v. Aspen Square Mgmt. A/A/F 100 South (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “”); see generally OCGA § 5-3-6 et seq. (setting forth the procedure for filing a petition for review).”
Antjuan Johnson v. Gsic II City North LLC D/B/A Avana City North (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “”); see generally OCGA § 5-3-6 et seq. (setting forth the procedures applicable to petitions for review).”
In Re: Est. of Kevin L. George (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 5-3-6. The petition is then served on the lower court, which transmits the record to the reviewing court.”
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Prince & Prince, LLC (Ga. 2025). “In its place, the General Assembly enacted OCGA § 5-3-2, § 5-3-6(a), and § 5- 3-7(b), which became effective on July 1, 2023, after Ultra filed its petition for 3 arguing that Ultra had failed to preserve its right to appeal because it did not file a motion with the CEO for…”
— 5-3-6(a) — 1 case
Ultra Grp. of Companies, Inc. v. Prince & Prince, LLC (Ga. 2025). “In its place, the General Assembly enacted OCGA § 5-3-2, § 5-3-6(a), and § 5- 3-7(b), which became effective on July 1, 2023, after Ultra filed its petition for 3 arguing that Ultra had failed to preserve its right to appeal because it did not file a motion with the CEO for…”
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.