Legal Opinion

Erbelding v. Noland Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 13, 1951No. 33313PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MacIntyre, P. J..

Code § 103-101 provides: “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.” This is but one of the distinctions between suretyship and *466guarantyship. Manry v. Waxelbaum, 108 Ga. 14 (33 S. E. 701). There are others. In Etheridge v. Rawleigh Co., 29 Ga. App. 698, 702 (116 S. E. 903), it was said: “A…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Manry v. Waxelbaum Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1899
  2. Etheridge v. Rawleigh Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
  3. Musgrove v. Luther Publishing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1908
  4. Heard v. Tappan & MerrittSupreme Court of Georgia · 1903
  5. Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. YoungCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Wehle v. BakerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1958
  2. Ferguson v. ATLANTA NEWSPAPERS INC.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
  3. Ford Motor Credit Co. v. SullivanCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1984
  4. Continental Casualty Co. v. Continental Rent-A-Car of Georgia, Inc.District Court, N.D. Georgia · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API