A specialty is a contract under seal and is considered by the law as entered into with more solemnity, and consequently of higher dignity, than ordinary, simple contracts.
(Orig. Code 1863, § 2679; Code 1868, § 2675; Code 1873, § 2717; Code 1882, § 2717; Civil Code 1895, § 3634; Civil Code 1910, § 4219; Code 1933, § 20-104.)
Cross references.- Time limitation on bringing of actions upon instruments under seal, § 9-3-23.
Effect of affixing seal to writing evidencing contract for sale or offer to buy or sell goods, § 11-2-203.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Common-law definition of specialty followed in this state.
- At common law a bond was known as a specialty. The common-law definition is followed in this state. Cosgro v. Quinn, 219 Ga. 272, 133 S.E.2d 343 (1963).
Discussion of common-law rules as to specialties requiring no consideration.
- See Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hosp. v. Nisbet, 189 Ga. 807, 7 S.E.2d 737 (1940).
Obligations recognized as specialties and requiring no consideration at common law.
- Common law recognized as specialties, requiring no consideration, not only double or conditional bonds with penalty and defeasance clause, but other sealed and formally delivered obligations known as single bonds; these rules as to specialties remain of force in this state, and include like instruments creating gifts of money payable in future. Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hosp. v. Nisbet, 189 Ga. 807, 7 S.E.2d 737 (1940).
Discussion of double bonds, containing defeasance clauses, and single bonds, as specialties at common law.
- See Trustees of Jesse Parker Williams Hosp. v. Nisbet, 189 Ga. 807, 7 S.E.2d 737 (1940).
Absence of consideration is not a defense when a contract is under seal. Paige v. Jurgensen, 204 Ga. App. 524, 419 S.E.2d 722 (1992).
Lease executed under seal is a specialty. United Leather Co. v. Proudfit, 151 Ga. 403, 107 S.E. 327 (1921).
Effect of considering insurance policy under seal as specialty.- Insurance policy under seal constituted a specialty, and such that there could be no recovery by insurer of money paid under the policy, on ground of false representations, as long as the policy remained uncanceled, and suit to cancel and recover such payment was not barred on ground that complainant had adequate and complete remedy at law. Massachusetts Protective Ass'n v. Kittles, 2 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1924).
Cited in Seawright v. Dickson, 16 Ga. App. 436, 85 S.E. 625 (1915); Citizens' Bank v. Hall, 179 Ga. 662, 177 S.E. 496 (1934); Peerless Cas. Co. v. Housing Auth., 228 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1955); Cheeley Invs., L.P. v. Zambetti, 332 Ga. App. 115, 770 S.E.2d 350 (2015).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
C.J.S.
- 17 C.J.S., Contracts, §§ 1, 10.
ALR.
- Necessity of consideration to support option under seal, 21 A.L.R. 137.
Liability of undisclosed principal on sealed contract, 32 A.L.R. 162.
Modification of sealed instrument by subsequent parol agreement, 55 A.L.R. 685.
Waiver by parol of provision in sealed instrument, 55 A.L.R. 700.