Amount of bond discretionary with court.

- Whether the security required of the receiver is sufficient is a matter of discretion. McDougald v. Dougherty, 11 Ga. 570 (1852).

While receivers ought generally to be required to give security, where the parties in interest apply for receiver's appointment, and are in all respects capable of judging the competency and responsibility of the person appointed, they may unquestionably waive security; however, in the case of infants, the court ought to look closely into the matter and see that their interests are secure, and if the receiver is not entirely responsible, security ought to be required. Johns v. Johns, 23 Ga. 31 (1857).

Appointment of receivers was not erroneous because of refusal of court to comply with request by added defendant to require plaintiffs to give bond for protection against any damage that the plaintiff might sustain as a result of such receivership, nor, under the particular facts of the case, was it error to refuse to allow the defendant to give bond in lieu of the appointment of receivers for the corporate stock in question. Benton v. Turk, 188 Ga. 710, 4 S.E.2d 580 (1939).

Failure to give bond not an abuse of discretion.

- Because officers failed to move in the trial court for the state to post a bond under the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, O.C.G.A. § 16-14-6(b), the officers' claim that the trial court erred in not requiring the state to post a bond would not be considered on appeal; the officers did move for the receiver to post a bond, but the trial court had discretion whether or not to require the receiver to give bond for the faithful discharge of the trust reposed, O.C.G.A. § 9-8-10, and the trial court did not abuse that discretion. Pittman v. State, 288 Ga. 589, 706 S.E.2d 398 (2011).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 65 Am. Jur. 2d, Receivers, § 59.

C.J.S.

- 75 C.J.S., Receivers, §§ 75, 472 et seq.

ALR.

- Leave of court as prerequisite to action on statutory bond, 2 A.L.R. 563.