concurring specially.
I concur in Judge Clark’s opinion but do not agree to his premise that the bond served as a substitute for the lien. My view is it is a substitute for the real estate as was expressly stated in United Bonding Ins. Co. v. Good-Wynn Elec. Supply Co., 124 Ga. App. 545 (2) (184 SE2d 508) in which the contractor had executed the bond together with the surety, and in which it was said, "In the case sub judice the general contractor and its surety substituted themselves in place of the realty.” (Emphasis supplied.) This case was cited in Pickett v. Chamblee Const. Co., 124 Ga. App. 769, 774 (8) (186 SE2d 123) as authority for the statement "[t]he bond substitutes for the lien on the realty . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) And, subsequently, the latter case was cited in Vector Co. v. Star Enterprises, 131 Ga. App. 569, 571 (206 SE2d 636) in support of the statement that "[w]hen the bond to discharge the lien under Code Ann. § 67-2004 was filed and recorded the bond was substituted for the lien...” (Emphasis supplied.) This was' quite a transition, and in my opinion the substitution for the realty which is correct is quite different from a substitution for the lien (which is erroneous). This particular ruling in the latter two cases should be expressly disapproved as not being supported by the authority originally cited. In United Bonding Ins. Co. v. *680Good-Wynn Elec. Supply Co., 124 Ga. App. 545, supra, this court, after holding in Division 1 that the right to a lien had been established and after stating in Division 2 that the bond was substituted for the realty made the further following statement: "They [referring to the general contractor and surety who executed the bond] are now the security for the debt. The debt itself does not depend upon the nicety of whether the material was or was not finally incorporated into the improvement. The debt exists if materials were furnished and not paid for. The debt has been proven and is not disputed.” The ultimate result reached was correct, that is that the lien having been established, and the debt against the contractor established, the surety was bound for the amount of that debt; however, that case was in error in saying that the surety on the bond was also surety for the debt. Indirectly he was, once the lien and debt were established, but the surety on the bond was not a direct surety for the debt. This latter statement in this case so suggesting should be expressly disapproved, although the result reached was correct. The prior decision of this court in Montgomery v. Richards Bldg. Materials, Inc., 122 Ga. App. 472 (177 SE2d 507) is controlling here.
The bondsmen may set up any defense against the lien, whether he be the owner or the contractor.