Turner v. Womack
Turner v. Womack
Opinion of the Court
1. The extension to the maker of a promissory note of the time of payment thereof will have the effect of discharging the surety only when the extension is for a definite period, for a valuable consideration, and without the consent of the surety. Luden v. Enterprise Lumber Co., 146 Ga. 284 (2), 287 (2) (91 S. E. 102, L. R. A. 1917 C, 485), and citations; Tanner v. Gude, 100 Ga. 157 (27 S. E. 938); Tatum v. Morgan, 108 Ga. 336 (33 S. E. 940).
2. βThe notice to the creditor by a surety to proceed against the principal debtor, required by the statute, is written notice; an oral request will not suffice.β Timmons v. Butler, 138 Ga. 69 (1) (74 S. E. 784).
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.