10-7-21. Novation; effect.

Orig. Code 1863, § 2130; Code 1868, § 2125; Code 1873, § 2153; Code 1882, § 2153; Civil Code 1895, § 2971; Civil Code 1910, § 3543; Code 1933, § 103-202.

It was held in some cases, prior to 1981, that this section did not apply to compensated sureties, as they were treated as guarantors under O.C.G.A. § 10-7-1 as it then read. See, for example, Travelers Indem. Co. v. Sasser & Co., 138 Ga. App. 361, 226 S.E.2d 121 (1976); Brock Constr. Co. v. Houston Gen. Ins. Co., 144 Ga. App. 860, 243 S.E.2d 83, aff’d, 241 Ga. 460, 246 S.E.2d 316 (1978), overruling Little Rock Furn. Co. v. Jones & Co., 13 Ga. App. 502, 79 S.E. 375 (1913), and Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Collier, 21 Ga. App. 87, 94 S.E. 56 (1917). Other cases stated that this section did apply to contracts of guaranty. See, for example, Dunlap v. Citizens & S. DeKalb Bank, 134 Ga. App. 893, 216 S.E.2d 651 (1975); Gilbert v. Cobb Exch. Bank, 140 Ga. App. 514, 231 S.E.2d 508 (1976); Ricks v. United States, 434 F. Supp. 1262 (S.D. Ga. 1976). Then in 1981, Ga. L. 1981, p. 870, § 1, amended O.C.G.A. § 10-7-1 to abolish the distinction between contracts of suretyship and guaranty. See the Editor’s note to O.C.G.A. § 10-7-1.

For article, “Georgia Law Needs Clarification: Does it Take Willful or Wanton Misconduct to Defeat a Contractual ‘Exculpatory’ Clause, or Will Gross Negligence Suffice,” see 19 Ga. St. B. J. 10 (Feb. 2014).