Garland v. Rumble

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Garland v. Rumble

73 S.E. 588, 10 Ga. App. 347, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 501

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 15, 1912

Docket3511

StatusPublished

This text of 73 S.E. 588 (Garland v. Rumble) 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

Garland v. Rumble, 73 S.E. 588, 10 Ga. App. 347, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 501 (Ga. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Hill, C. J.

A client sued his attorney for money had and received by the attorney for the client’s benefit. The client had placed in the hands of the attorney a note for collection; and the attorney collected it and retained half of the amount as a' fee for his services. The client contended that he had made no contract for fees, and that the attorney ivas entitled only to a quantum meruit for his services The attorney contended that lie had a verbal contract which entitled him to retain half of the amount collected. This was the sole issue in the case, and the jury found in favor of the client, and no error of law is complained of. As repeatedly ruled, the verdict settled the issue of fact, and this court can not interfere. Judgment affirmed.

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

Hill, C. J.

A client sued his attorney for money had and received by the attorney for the client’s benefit. The client had placed in the hands of the attorney a note for collection; and the attorney collected it and retained half of the amount as a' fee for his services. The client contended that he had made no contract for fees, and that the attorney ivas entitled only to a quantum meruit for his services The attorney contended that lie had a verbal contract which entitled him to retain half of the amount collected. This was the sole issue in the case, and the jury found in favor of the client, and no error of law is complained of. As repeatedly ruled, the verdict settled the issue of fact, and this court can not interfere. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.E. 588, 10 Ga. App. 347, 1912 Ga. App. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garland-v-rumble-gactapp-1912.