Peara v. Atlanta Newspapers, Inc. , 120 Ga. App. 163 ( 1969 )

Bell, Presiding Judge.

“A contract of suretyship must be strictly construed in the interest of the surety.” Maryland Cas. Co. v. McAlpin, 31 Ga. App. 303 (1) (120 SE 653). A surety’s liability will not be extended by implication or interpretation. Williams Valve Co. v. Amorous, 19 Ga. App. 155 (91 SE 240). Code § 103-103. “The undertaking of a surety being stricti-juris, he cannot, in law or equity, be bound further than the very terms of his contract.” Bethune v. Dozier, 10 Ga. 235. Mayor &c. of Savannah v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 104 Ga. App. 879 (123 SE2d 293). Here, the contract of suretyship signed by the defendant was for “advertising credit extended to World Wide Computer Training.” Numerous exhibits offered in evidence by the plaintiff (these exhibits being on plaintiff’s own forms) contained the words “Charge to: Computer Services Corp.” A strict construction of the contract here shows that the credit for which the plaintiff sues was extended to Computer Services Corp. It can contribute nothing to plaintiff’s cause that the exhibits contained notations to the effect that the ads published were for “World Wide Computer, a division of Computer Services Corp.” The defendant, Peara, did not agree to indemnify for credit extended to Computer Services Corp. The evidence therefore demanded a verdict for the defendant. The trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for directed verdict. The judgment is reversed with direction to the trial court to enter judgment for the defendant. Code Ann. § 81 A-150 (e).

Judgment reversed with direction.

Fberhardt, J., concurs. Deen, J., concurs specially. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Robert R. Harlin, Sidney J. Nurkin, for appellant. B. Hugh Ansley, for appellee.