Ingram-Dart Lighterage Co. v. Gale

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Ingram-Dart Lighterage Co. v. Gale

87 S.E. 29, 17 Ga. App. 386, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 442

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedDecember 2, 1915

Docket6458

StatusPublished

This text of 87 S.E. 29 (Ingram-Dart Lighterage Co. v. Gale) 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

Ingram-Dart Lighterage Co. v. Gale, 87 S.E. 29, 17 Ga. App. 386, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 442 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Russell C. J.

In the absence of a demurrer, the plaintiff’s petition, in which he sought to recover on a quantum meruit the reasonable value of his services as an attorney at law, set forth a cause of action. His right to receive adequate compensation for his services as an attorney in actually recovering money or property for his client was not necessarily defeated because his right to compensation may have been in the first instance expressly contingent upon a recovery of some amount in favor of his client. The case as laid was supported by proof. The exceptions to the evidence can not be considered, because it does not appear that the objections now urged were offered at the trial; and the evidence itself is not specifically set forth in the motion for a new trial. The exceptions to the charge are' without merit. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Russell C. J.

In the absence of a demurrer, the plaintiff’s petition, in which he sought to recover on a quantum meruit the reasonable value of his services as an attorney at law, set forth a cause of action. His right to receive adequate compensation for his services as an attorney in actually recovering money or property for his client was not necessarily defeated because his right to compensation may have been in the first instance expressly contingent upon a recovery of some amount in favor of his client. The case as laid was supported by proof. The exceptions to the evidence can not be considered, because it does not appear that the objections now urged were offered at the trial; and the evidence itself is not specifically set forth in the motion for a new trial. The exceptions to the charge are' without merit. The court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 S.E. 29, 17 Ga. App. 386, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ingram-dart-lighterage-co-v-gale-gactapp-1915.