Lang v. Aldred

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Lang v. Aldred

179 S.E. 567, 51 Ga. App. 91, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 567

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 8, 1935

Docket24492

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 S.E. 567 (Lang v. Aldred) 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

Lang v. Aldred, 179 S.E. 567, 51 Ga. App. 91, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 567 (Ga. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

This was a suit upon a note executed by the defendant, a married woman. Her plea set forth that the debt represented by the note was the debt of her husband, and that “she did not receive the benefit of any part of the money for which said note was given.” Upon the trial the undisputed evidence showed that she did receive the benefit of at least part of the money obtained upon the note; and the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the evidence did not disclose that the plaintiff knew that the debt represented by the note was the debt of the defendant’s husband, although the attorney employed by the plaintiff to examine the title to the defendant’s property (which was deeded as security for the loan evidenced by the note), may have acquired such knowledge in previous transactions with other parties. For knowledge of an attorney to be knowledge of his client, “it is necessary that the knowledge of the attorney be gained in the course of the particular transaction in which he is. employed by his client. 6 C. J. 639. In case of a; limited employment, knowledge of the attorney beyond the scope of the employment is not imputable to the client. Hess v. Conway, 92 Kan. 787 (4 A. L. R. 1580, 1604, 142 Pac. 253). It has been held that where a party employed an attorney for the special purpose of examining an abstract and passing upon the record title, the client was not chargeable with notice of all knowledge which the attorney may have previously acquired from other transactions for other parties. Trentor v. Pothen, 46 Minn. [92]*92298 (49 N. W. 129, 24 Am. St. R. 225).” Citizens Bank v. Citizens & So. Bank, 160 Ga. 109, 119 (127 S. E. 219).

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

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

Broyles, C. J.

This was a suit upon a note executed by the defendant, a married woman. Her plea set forth that the debt represented by the note was the debt of her husband, and that “she did not receive the benefit of any part of the money for which said note was given.” Upon the trial the undisputed evidence showed that she did receive the benefit of at least part of the money obtained upon the note; and the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the evidence did not disclose that the plaintiff knew that the debt represented by the note was the debt of the defendant’s husband, although the attorney employed by the plaintiff to examine the title to the defendant’s property (which was deeded as security for the loan evidenced by the note), may have acquired such knowledge in previous transactions with other parties. For knowledge of an attorney to be knowledge of his client, “it is necessary that the knowledge of the attorney be gained in the course of the particular transaction in which he is. employed by his client. 6 C. J. 639. In case of a; limited employment, knowledge of the attorney beyond the scope of the employment is not imputable to the client. Hess v. Conway, 92 Kan. 787 (4 A. L. R. 1580, 1604, 142 Pac. 253). It has been held that where a party employed an attorney for the special purpose of examining an abstract and passing upon the record title, the client was not chargeable with notice of all knowledge which the attorney may have previously acquired from other transactions for other parties. Trentor v. Pothen, 46 Minn. [92]*92298 (49 N. W. 129, 24 Am. St. R. 225).” Citizens Bank v. Citizens & So. Bank, 160 Ga. 109, 119 (127 S. E. 219).

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre and Guerry, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E. 567, 51 Ga. App. 91, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lang-v-aldred-gactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack