Sikes v. Mallonee

75 S.E. 988, 11 Ga. App. 632, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 119
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedOctober 4, 1912
Docket3627
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 75 S.E. 988 (Sikes v. Mallonee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sikes v. Mallonee, 75 S.E. 988, 11 Ga. App. 632, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 119 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinion

Russell, J.

1. Lee leased in writing from Sikes certain timber lands upon certain terms and conditions. Mallonee guaranteed payment of the purcháse-money as set out in Lee’s contract. Subsequently the terms and conditions of the contract were materially modified. As Mallonee’s contract of guaranty had to be in writing (Civil Code, § 3222, par. 2), so likewise, under the general rule, any proposed modification thereof, to be effective, must also have been in writing. Southern Ry. Co. v. Smith, 106 Ga. 864 (33 S. E. 28); Miller v. Smith, 6 Ga. App. 448 (65 S. E. 292). And a contract of guaranty is no less subject to the provisions of section 3223 of the Civil Code than are other contracts therein referred to.

2. Consent of a guarantor to a material modification of the contract, the performance of which he guarantees, can not be inferred from the mere [633]*633fact that he had knowledge of the modification, or that he did not dissent from such modification. Riggins v. Brown, 12 Ga. 276.

Decided October 4, 1912. • Action on guaranty; from city court of Savannah — Judge Davis Freeman. July 7, 1911: Twiggs & Gazan, for plaintiff. Lawton & Cunningham, for defendant.

3. Inasmuch as the rights and liabilities of a guarantor are stricti juris, and in this case the modification of the original contract was demanded by the obligee, and the change of the contract was for his profit and benefit, and there is nothing in the evidence to indicate that failure to perform either the original contract or the contract as changed would constitute a fraud on the part of the guarantor, this case does not fall within the exception mentioned in th,e first headnote, and there was no error in directing the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Pottle, J., not presiding.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hendricks v. Enterprise Financial Corp.
405 S.E.2d 566 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1991)
Missouri Finance Corp. v. Roos
47 S.W.2d 142 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1932)
Stein v. Richman
119 S.E. 669 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
75 S.E. 988, 11 Ga. App. 632, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sikes-v-mallonee-gactapp-1912.