Legal Opinion
Bearden v. EBCAP SUPPLY COMPANY
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided September 25, 1963No. 40303PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Russell, Judge.
A contract of guaranty, whether entered into on the same or another instrument as that of the original obligation, whether executed at the same or a different time, and whether or not purporting to be the separate obligation of the signer, must, to be enforceable, show a consideration flowing directly to the guarantor. Code § 103-101. This is because it is a separate contract, and any contract, to be enforceable, must have a consideration. Code § 20-107; Guggenheimer & Co. v. Gilmore, 29 Ga. App. 540 (116 SE 67).
1. The guarantor’s promise cannot be founded on a past…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Durham v. GreenwoldSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
- Green Wold Grift Company v. DurhamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Guggenheimer & Co. v. GilmoreCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
3Cited by5 opinions
- Litland v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2000
- National Acceptance Co. v. Fulton National BankCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
- Vaccaro v. AndresenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1964
- GAUSE Et Al. v. FIDELITY BANKCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2015
- United States v. Blue Dolphin Associates, Inc.District Court, S.D. Georgia · 1985