O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-113 (2019)

When verification sufficient

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All affidavits, petitions, answers, defenses, or other proceedings required to be verified or sworn to under oath shall be held to be sufficient when the same are sworn to before any notary public, magistrate, judge of any court, or any other officer of the state or county where the oath is made who is authorized by the laws thereof to administer oaths. The oath if made outside this state shall have the same force and effect as if it had been made before an officer of this state authorized to administer the same. The official attestation of the officer before whom the oath or affidavit is made shall be prima-facie evidence of the official character of the officer and that he was authorized by law to administer oaths. However, this Code section shall not apply to such affidavits as may be expressly required by statute to be made before some particular officer within the state.

History

Ga. L. 1853-54, p. 50, § 1; Code 1863, § 4108; Code 1868, § 4139; Ga. L. 1870, p. 415, §§ 1, 2; Code 1873, §§ 3450, 4198; Code 1882, §§ 3450, 4198; Civil Code

1895, §§ 5060, 5062; Ga. L. 1905, p. 103, § 1; Civil Code 1910, §§ 5643, 5645, 5646; Ga. L. 1913, p. 56, § 1; Code 1933, §§ 81407, 81-408, 81-409; Ga. L. 1983, p. 884, § 4-1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS This section is applicable to federal courts and verification by justice of peace within its terms is sufficient. Bank of Edgefield v. Farmers’ Co-op. Mfg. Co., 52 F. 98, 1892 U.S. App. LEXIS 1383 (5th Cir. 1892) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-10-113). Affidavit of illegality is a defense and falls within the provision of this section. Craige v. Fraser, 73 Ga. 246, 1884 Ga. LEXIS 109 (1884) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-10-113). Where answers are sworn to out of state, oath should be administered by someone authorized by Georgia laws or the Acts of Congress. Royston v. Royston, 21 Ga. 161, 1857 Ga. LEXIS 27 (1857). Affidavit made in another state will not be recognized here without authentication of official character of the person taking the affidavit. Behn & Foster v. William H. Young & Co., 21 Ga. 207, 1857 Ga. LEXIS 38 (1857); Charles v. Foster, 56 Ga. 612, 1876 Ga. LEXIS 385 (1876); Castellaw v. Blanchard, 106 Ga. 97, 31 S.E. 801, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 26 (1898); Brunswick Hdwe. Co. v. Bingham, 107 Ga. 270, 33 S.E. 56, 1899 Ga. LEXIS 50 (1899). Affidavit in forma pauperis before foreign notary, with the notary’s seal attached, is receivable in the courts of this state, and is sufficient to prevent a dismissal of a bill of exceptions (see

O.C.G.A. §§ 5-6-49, 5-6-50) for failure to pay costs. Whatley v. Macon & N. Ry., 104 Ga. 764, 30 S.E. 1003, 1898 Ga. LEXIS 423 (1898); Shockley v. Turnell & Bearden, 114 Ga. 378, 40 S.E. 279, 1901 Ga. LEXIS 707 (1901); Simpson v. Wicker, 120 Ga. 418, 47 S.E. 965, 1904 Ga. LEXIS 575 (1904). Verification filed with court does not have to be original signed version. - When a trust filed a purportedly verified complaint against the defendant to which the defendant did not file a verified answer, the trial court erred in deeming that the trust’s complaint was not verified because the verification met the requirements set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-113 as the verification contained the signature of the trust’s authorized representative and was attested to by a notary public commissioned in Ohio; nothing in the language of O.C.G.A. § 9-10113 suggested that the document filed with the court had to be the original signed version; and no authority under the Uniform Superior Court Rules or a local standing order suggested that a purported verification was defective if the original signed version was not filed with the court. Cornerstone Quarry 2010 A Trust v. Heath, 345 Ga. App. 806, 815 S.E.2d 557, 2018 Ga. App. LEXIS 283 (2018).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 61B Am. Jur. 2d, Pleading, §§ 181 et seq., 771 et seq. C.J.S. 71 C.J.S., Pleading, § 512.

ALR. Failure of affidavit for publication of summons to state the facts required by statute as subjecting the judgment to collateral attack, 25 A.L.R. 1258.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Denton v. Browns Mill Dev. Co., 561 S.E.2d 431 (Ga. 2002).
Denton v. Browns Mill Dev. Co., 561 S.E.2d 431 (Ga. 2002). · cites it 4× “of grievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern, both the party asserting the claim and the party's attorney of record, if any, shall be required to file,…”
Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Bloomberg, 705 S.E.2d 241 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “ievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern, both *358 the party asserting the claim and the party’s attorney of record, if any, shall be required to file,…”
Walden v. Shelton, 606 S.E.2d 299 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “ievances under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Georgia in connection with an issue of public interest or concern, both the party asserting the *240 claim and the party’s attorney of record, if any, shall be required to file,…”
Gordon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Knight), 504 B.R. 668 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “01 and O.C.G.A. § 9-10-113, which limits the effectiveness of a notarization to those made within the state where the notary holds their appointment.”
Joann Williams v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., 796 S.E.2d 923 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 9-10-113 (governing sufficiency of verification for affidavits and answers).”
Cornerstone Quarry 2010 a Trust v. Heath., 815 S.E.2d 557 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “" OCGA § 9-10-113 provides, in relevant part, that All affidavits, petitions, answers, defenses, or other proceedings required to be verified or sworn to under oath shall be held to be sufficient when the same are sworn to before any notary public, magistrate, judge of any…”
In the Interest of H. H., Child. (father) (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 9-10-113. See also In the Interest of I.”
Unified Gov't of Cusseta-Chattahoochee Cnty. v. Damon Hoyte (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “She cites, inter alia, OCGA § 9-10-113 (discussing the sufficiency of affidavit verifications).”
Unified Gov't of Cusseta-Chattahoochee Cnty. v. Damon Hoyte (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “She cites, inter alia, OCGA § 9-10-113 (discussing the sufficiency of affidavit verifications).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.