"When the sufficiency of the complaint is questioned by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted, `the new rules require that it be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff with all doubts resolved in his favor even though unfavorable constructions are possible. Not unless the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts should the complaint be dismissed.' [Cit.]" Tri-City Sanitation v. Action Sanitation, 227 Ga. 489, 490 ( 181 S.E.2d 377) (1971); Paris v. Citizens c. Nat. Bank, 141 Ga. App. 165, 167 (1) ( 233 S.E.2d 433) (1977). Applying this rule to the instant case, the trial judge did not err in overruling appellant's motion to dismiss.
Sou. Concrete Co. v. Carter Const. Co., 121 Ga. App. 573, 574 ( 174 S.E.2d 447) (1970); Irby v. Christian, 132 Ga. App. 796 ( 209 S.E.2d 245) (1974). Since the effect of appellee's motion was to test the legal sufficiency of appellant's complaint (see Paris v. C. S. Nat. Bank, 141 Ga. App. 165, 167 ( 233 S.E.2d 433) (1977)), appellant's failure to include a trial transcript in the record is not fatal to this appeal. Cline v. Lever Bros. Co., 124 Ga. App. 22 ( 183 S.E.2d 63) (1971).
The general rule is that an attack upon a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted should not be sustained unless the averments in the complaint disclose with certainty that plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts that could be shown in support of the claim. Paris v. C. S. Nat. Bank, 141 Ga. App. 165, 167 (1) ( 233 S.E.2d 433). But here plaintiff relies upon the written guaranty agreement, a copy of which is attached to the complaint as an exhibit. "Where a party relies on a written instrument as the basis of an action, and attaches a copy of the instrument as an exhibit, the facts shown in the exhibit will prevail over the allegations of the party in the pleading.
Both this court and the Supreme Court have "consistently held that a complaint should not be dismissed unless its averments disclose with certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim." Strickland v. Crutcher, 229 Ga. 310, 312 ( 191 S.E.2d 55) (1972); Paris v. C. S. Nat. Bank, 141 Ga. App. 165, 167 (1) ( 233 S.E.2d 433) (1977). In our view the language of Code Ann. ยง 22-714 is sufficiently broad for an action to be brought under the averments of this complaint.