---
title: O.C.G.A. § 10-7-21. Novation; effect.
collection: code
id: 10-7-21
cite_as: O.C.G.A. § 10-7-21 (2025)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/10-7-21
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/10-7-21.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/10-7-21/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/t10-(v8)-2024-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=1992b47e_0#page=1163
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/code/10-7.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/code/10-7-20.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/code/10-7-22.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: COMMERCE AND TRADE / SURETYSHIP / RELATIVE RIGHTS OF CREDITOR AND SURETY
---

# O.C.G.A. § 10-7-21. Novation; effect.

Any change in the nature or terms of a contract is called a “novation”; such novation, without the consent of the surety, discharges him.

## History

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.

## Editor's Notes

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.

## Law Reviews

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).