Finch v. Cox

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Finch v. Cox

89 S.E. 459, 18 Ga. App. 284, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 295

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 26, 1916

Docket7210

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 459 (Finch v. Cox) 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

Finch v. Cox, 89 S.E. 459, 18 Ga. App. 284, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 295 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

1. In order to recover attorney’s fees upon a note, it is essential that the holder thereof, or his agent, or attorney, notify the defendant, in writing, ten days before suit is brought, of his intention to bring suit, and also of the term of the court to which suit will be brought. Civil Code, § 4252.

[285]*285Decided June 26, 1916. Rehearing denied July 18, 1916.

Complaint; from municipal court of Atlanta. November 30, 1915.

Gober & Jaclcson, W. I. Eeyxvard, for plaintiff in error. . J. N. Johnson Jr., Napier, Wright & Cox, contra.

2. Attached to the summons issued from the municipal court of Atlanta was a paper purporting to be in compliance with the above section; and a copy of the summons, with this paper, was served on the defendant. The filing of the suit, followed by service on the defendant, is the bringing of the suit, and the notice so served was not served ten days be’fore the suit was brought. Therefore the terms of- the above section were not complied with, and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

Judgment affirmed, with direetion that the attorney’s fees he written off.

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

Hodges, J.

1. In order to recover attorney’s fees upon a note, it is essential that the holder thereof, or his agent, or attorney, notify the defendant, in writing, ten days before suit is brought, of his intention to bring suit, and also of the term of the court to which suit will be brought. Civil Code, § 4252.

[285]*285Decided June 26, 1916. Rehearing denied July 18, 1916.

Complaint; from municipal court of Atlanta. November 30, 1915.

Gober & Jaclcson, W. I. Eeyxvard, for plaintiff in error. . J. N. Johnson Jr., Napier, Wright & Cox, contra.

2. Attached to the summons issued from the municipal court of Atlanta was a paper purporting to be in compliance with the above section; and a copy of the summons, with this paper, was served on the defendant. The filing of the suit, followed by service on the defendant, is the bringing of the suit, and the notice so served was not served ten days be’fore the suit was brought. Therefore the terms of- the above section were not complied with, and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover attorney’s fees.

Judgment affirmed, with direetion that the attorney’s fees he written off.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 459, 18 Ga. App. 284, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/finch-v-cox-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack