Legal Opinion

Durham v. Greenwold

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided April 15, 1939No. 12675PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Jenkins, Justice.

The Code, § 103-101, provides as follows: “The contract of suretyship is one whereby a person obligates himself to pay the debt of another in consideration of credit or indulgence, or other benefit given to his principal, the principal remaining bound therefor. It differs from a guaranty in this, that the consideration of the latter is a benefit flowing to the guarantor.” Although the distinction between a surety and a guarantor is thus plainly set forth by the Code, it would seem that the line of de*167marcation as there drawn is not absolutely all-inclusive, since an original…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Manry v. Waxelbaum Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
  2. Baggs v. FunderburkeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1912
  3. Heard v. Tappan & MerrittSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  4. Sims & Auchmuty v. Clark & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1893
  5. Holmes v. Schwab & SonsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Wolkin v. National Acceptance Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1966
  2. General Finance Corp. v. WelbornCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
  3. Simpson v. ChartersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1939
  4. Green Wold Grift Company v. DurhamSupreme Court of Georgia · 1941
  5. Parker v. PuckettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API