Cates v. Kelley

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cates v. Kelley

191 S.E. 384, 55 Ga. App. 786, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 505

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMay 15, 1937

Docket26155

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 S.E. 384 (Cates v. Kelley) 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

Cates v. Kelley, 191 S.E. 384, 55 Ga. App. 786, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 505 (Ga. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Sutton, J.

A contract between a layman and an attorney at law, who has taken a catee on a contingent fee, whereby the layman is to search out witnesses and obtain evidence to prove the case and share in the fee of the attorney in the event of recovery, is void as against public policy. 6. R. C. L. 757, § 164; 13 C. J. 448, § 388; Johnson v. Higgins, 30 Del. 548 (2) (108 Atl. 647); Gross v. Campbell, 118 Ohio St. 285 (160 N. E. 852); Duteau v. Dresback, 113 Wash. 545 (194 Pac. 547, 16 A. L. R. 1430); Quirk v. Muller, 14 Mont. 467 (36 Pac. 1077, 25 L. R. A. 87, 43 Am. St. R. 647); Neece v. Joseph, 95 Ark. 552 (129 S. W. 797, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 278, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 655). Accordingly, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition in which the plaintiff, a layman, sought to recover a balance alleged to be due him under a contract with the defendant, an attorney at law, whereby the plaintiff was employed “to investigate the facts of said case and secure evidence and the names of witnesses to prove the case,” and share in the defendant’s fee which wa's contingent upon recovery. Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Sutton, J.

A contract between a layman and an attorney at law, who has taken a catee on a contingent fee, whereby the layman is to search out witnesses and obtain evidence to prove the case and share in the fee of the attorney in the event of recovery, is void as against public policy. 6. R. C. L. 757, § 164; 13 C. J. 448, § 388; Johnson v. Higgins, 30 Del. 548 (2) (108 Atl. 647); Gross v. Campbell, 118 Ohio St. 285 (160 N. E. 852); Duteau v. Dresback, 113 Wash. 545 (194 Pac. 547, 16 A. L. R. 1430); Quirk v. Muller, 14 Mont. 467 (36 Pac. 1077, 25 L. R. A. 87, 43 Am. St. R. 647); Neece v. Joseph, 95 Ark. 552 (129 S. W. 797, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 278, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 655). Accordingly, the court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition in which the plaintiff, a layman, sought to recover a balance alleged to be due him under a contract with the defendant, an attorney at law, whereby the plaintiff was employed “to investigate the facts of said case and secure evidence and the names of witnesses to prove the case,” and share in the defendant’s fee which wa's contingent upon recovery. Judgment affirmed.

Stephens, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E. 384, 55 Ga. App. 786, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cates-v-kelley-gactapp-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack