Jones v. Word & Mauldin

99 S.E. 230, 23 Ga. App. 646, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 259
Court of Appeals of Georgia·Decided April 19, 1919·No. 10223·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Luke, J.

It is well settled that an attorney at law can not without special authority receive anything in discharge of his clients claim but the full amount in cash. Civil Code (1910), § 4956. Upon the agreed statement of facts the trial court did not err' in rendering the judgment complained of; and it was, (therefore, not error for the judge of the • superior court to overrule the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Wade, C. J., and Jenkins, J., concur. Lawton Nalley, for plaintiff in error, cited:

Evans v. Collier,79 Ga. 319; Johnson v. Klassett,9 Ga. App. 733; Civil Code (1910), § 4389; Thompson v. McDonald, 84 Ga. 5; Macon & Augusta R. Co. v. Garrard, 54 Ga. 327.

Virlyn B. Moore, contra, cited:

Park’s Code, §§ 4956, 5795; Patterson y. Childs, 9 Ga. App. 646; Bell v. Kwilecki, 11 Ga. App. 9; Kaiser v. Hancoch, 106 Ga. 217; A. C. L. Railroad Co. v. Blalock, 8 Ga. App. 44 (4); Johnson v. Klassett, supra, distinguished.

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

Jones v. Word & Mauldin, 99 S.E. 230, 23 Ga. App. 646, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 259 (Ga. Ct. App. 1919).

99 S.E. 230 (Jones v. Word & Mauldin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fairburn Supply Co. v. Crumley-Sharp Hardware Co.
124 S.E. 67 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1924)