Adair v. Metropolitan Casualty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Adair v. Metropolitan Casualty Co.

171 S.E. 853, 48 Ga. App. 88, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 462

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 27, 1933

Docket23319

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 S.E. 853 (Adair v. Metropolitan Casualty Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adair v. Metropolitan Casualty Co., 171 S.E. 853, 48 Ga. App. 88, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 462 (Ga. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Guerry, J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled. It does not affirmatively appear that the bill of exceptions was not tendered within twenty days after the judgment complained of; the date of tender, and not the date of certification, is the controlling factor.

2. The findings of fact by the Department of Industrial Relations, where there is any evidence to support them, are conclusive. Washington v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 39 Ga. App. 481 (147 S. E. 533) ; Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corporation v. Council, 35 Ga. App. 632 (134 S. E. 331), and cit.

3. It may be a violation of our statutes for an agent or officer of a corporation who is not an attorney at law to represent the corporation in a hearing before the Department of Industrial Relations in which the corporation is a defendant. A decision to that effect, however, is not necessary for a determination of this case. Such an agent may testify in' the hearing; and if the commissioner allows him to examine other witnesses, this fact does not make void the award. It may or may not subject the agent to action in other courts. A corporation may not practice law by representing others. Quasre: May it be represented by its agent or officers where it is a defendant in an action as provided in the Civil Code (1910), § 6360?

4. The court did not err in affirming the award of the Department of Industrial Relations.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Guerry, J.

1. The motion to dismiss the bill of exceptions is overruled. It does not affirmatively appear that the bill of exceptions was not tendered within twenty days after the judgment complained of; the date of tender, and not the date of certification, is the controlling factor.

2. The findings of fact by the Department of Industrial Relations, where there is any evidence to support them, are conclusive. Washington v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 39 Ga. App. 481 (147 S. E. 533) ; Ocean Accident & Guaranty Corporation v. Council, 35 Ga. App. 632 (134 S. E. 331), and cit.

3. It may be a violation of our statutes for an agent or officer of a corporation who is not an attorney at law to represent the corporation in a hearing before the Department of Industrial Relations in which the corporation is a defendant. A decision to that effect, however, is not necessary for a determination of this case. Such an agent may testify in' the hearing; and if the commissioner allows him to examine other witnesses, this fact does not make void the award. It may or may not subject the agent to action in other courts. A corporation may not practice law by representing others. Quasre: May it be represented by its agent or officers where it is a defendant in an action as provided in the Civil Code (1910), § 6360?

4. The court did not err in affirming the award of the Department of Industrial Relations.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.E. 853, 48 Ga. App. 88, 1933 Ga. App. LEXIS 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adair-v-metropolitan-casualty-co-gactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack