O.C.G.A. § 9-12-11 (2019)
Sureties and endorsers to be identified in judgment
In all judgments against sureties or endorsers on any draft, promissory note, or other instrument in writing, the plaintiff or his attorney shall designate and identify the relation of the parties under the contract on which the judgment is rendered. (Laws 1845, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 598; Laws 1850, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 600; Code 1863, § 3491; Code 1868, § 3514; Code 1873, § 3572; Code 1882, § 3572; Civil Code 1895, § 5343; Civil Code 1910, § 5938; Code 1933, § 110-306.)
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS This section was intended for benefit of surety or endorser. If such surety or endorser discharges the judgment, the surety can have the control of it for the surety’s reimbursement out of the maker or principal, without delay in procuring an order of court; however, compliance or noncompliance with this section cannot
benefit or injure the principal. Woolfolk v. Kyle, 48 Ga. 419 (1873). Judgment failing to describe security as security. - Judgment is not void by reason of failing to describe the security as security, but is amendable. Saffold v. Wade, 56 Ga. 174 (1876). Plaintiff or attorney must specify
status of parties to promissory note. - Former Code 1933, §§ 110-306 and 110-307 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 9-12-11 and 9-13-30) place the burden upon the plaintiff or the plaintiff ’s attorney in an action against a surety or an endorser on a promissory note to specify the status of
the parties to the note; when this was not done the judgment and execution should be corrected under former Code 1933, § 110-311 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-12-14). Franklin v. Sea Island Bank, 120 Ga. App. 654, 171 S.E.2d 866 (1969).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments, §§ 79, 80.
C.J.S. - 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 117 et seq.