Jones v. Word & Mauldin

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Jones v. Word & Mauldin

99 S.E. 230, 23 Ga. App. 646, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 259

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 19, 1919

Docket10223

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 S.E. 230 (Jones v. Word & Mauldin) 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

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

Pincite

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