Título 10. COMMERCE AND TRADE · Capítulo 7. SURETYSHIP · Artículo 1. CONTRACT OF SURETYSHIP
10-7-4. Form of contract immaterial.
Actualizado hasta: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.
El texto siguiente es la ley tal como la imprime el estado, en inglés.
The form of the contract is immaterial, provided the fact of suretyship exists.
History
Orig. Code 1863, § 2128; Code 1868, § 2123; Code 1873, § 2151; Code 1882, § 2151; Civil Code 1895, § 2969; Civil Code 1910, § 3541; Code 1933, § 103-104.
Editor's notes
In Massell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 57 Ga. App. 460, 196 S.E. 115 (1938), it was held that this section, under which an accommodation endorser was considered merely a surety, must yield to the former Negotiable Instruments Law, Ga. L. 1924, p. 126, which has in turn been superseded by the commercial paper provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, O.C.G.A. §§ 11-3-101 through 11-3-805. The UCC provides that a signature in an ambiguous capacity is an endorsement (O.C.G.A. § 11-3-402); that an accommodation party is liable in the capacity in which he has signed, even though the taker knows of the accommodation, where the instrument has been taken for value before it is due (O.C.G.A. § 11-3-415(2)); that oral proof of the accommodation is not admissible against a holder in due course who has no notice of the accommodation to give the accommodation party the benefit of discharges dependent on his character as such, but in other cases is admissible (§ 11-3-415(3)); and that an accommodation party paying the instrument has a right of recourse against the accommodated party (§ 11-3-415(5)), and spells out the liability of makers, drawers, acceptors, endorsers, and guarantors (O.C.G.A. §§ 11-3-413, 11-3-414, and 11-3-416) and how the liability of parties to commercial paper is discharged (§§ 11-3-601 through 11-3-606). Many cases involving negotiable instruments were decided under this section before the UCC became effective. See, for example, Freeman v. Cherry, 46 Ga. 14 (1872); Camp v. Simmons, 62 Ga. 73 (1878), later appeals, 64 Ga. 726, 65 Ga. 674 (1880), 71 Ga. 54 (1883); Patillo v. Mayer & Glauber, 70 Ga. 715 (1883); Hall v. Capital Bank, 71 Ga. 715 (1883); Parmelee v. Williams, 72 Ga. 42 (1883); Hull v. Myers, 90 Ga. 674, 16 S.E. 653 (1893); Baggs v. Funderburke, 11 Ga. App. 173, 74 S.E. 937 (1912); Bank of LaFayette v. Wardlaw, 20 Ga. App. 741, 93 S.E. 236 (1917); Washington Loan & Banking Co. v. Holliday, 26 Ga. App. 792, 107 S.E. 370, cert. denied, 26 Ga. App. 801 (1921); Taff v. Larey, 29 Ga. App. 631, 116 S.E. 866 (1923); McKibben v. Fourth Nat’l Bank, 32 Ga. App. 222, 122 S.E. 891 (1924); Smith v. Moore, 45 Ga. App. 708, 165 S.E. 765 (1932); Hamby v. Crisp, 48 Ga. App. 418, 172 S.E. 842 (1934).
Law reviews
For article, “Enforcing Commercial Real Estate Loan Guaranties,” see 15 (No. 2) Ga. St. B. J. 12 (2009).
Leer la página oficial (el PDF del estado, abierto en la página de la que se leyó este texto).
Actualizado hasta: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly.
Texto leído de t10-(v8)-2024-pdf.pdf, Volumen V8, edición 2024, página 1158; acción de fusión: carried; SHA-256 del archivo 7afbade16da7.