Little v. Sexton

15 S.E. 490, 89 Ga. 411
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedJune 8, 1892
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 15 S.E. 490 (Little v. Sexton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Little v. Sexton, 15 S.E. 490, 89 Ga. 411 (Ga. 1892).

Opinion

[411]*411 Judgment affirmed.

Only one witness, Juhan, was introduced, so far as appears from the record. He testified : Plaintiff employed the law firm of Juhan & McDonald to institute this proceeding in the court of ordinary, agreeing that the attorneys’ fees should not be less than one third of the recovery. The questions involved- were many of them difficult, the labor great and the litigation tedious. Fi-' nally the attorneys succeeded in recovering judgment for plaintiff for $567.97 in the court-of ordinary, and defendant entered an appeal. Pending the appeal plaintiff through her husband informed witness that defendant had offered to settle with her for $500, and advised with witness as to the propriety of it, and as to whether witness would consent to the settlement. Witness advised that it be done, and that the money must be paid to him or he would not abide it. After this witness was informed that the settlement had been made by the plaintiff, defendant informing him that the settlement had been made by paying plaintiff in money, cotton, etc., and defendant asked witness whether or not witness’ fee had been paid and what it was. Witness then told defendant that the fee was one third of the recovery, that it had not been paid, and that he would hold defendant liable for it. Defendant said all the cotton paid had not been shipped, and that might be reached yet. Witness told him he should look to him for the fee. He never gave defendant any notice of the claim for fees until after the settlement had been consummated by the parties. In the conversation defendant said that Sexton had told him the fee was only $25, and, as witness recollects, defendant said he had the money and would pay that. The fee charged (one third of the recovery) was reasonable and just for the service rendered, and has not been paid. S. J. Winn, for plaintiff in error. Juhan & McDonald, contra.

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

Related

May v. May
349 S.E.2d 766 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1986)
Wall v. Benningfield
227 S.E.2d 13 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1976)
Edwards v. Dowdy
70 S.E.2d 608 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1952)
Camp v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
157 S.E. 209 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1931)
Gulf States Steel Co. v. Justice
87 So. 211 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1920)
Denson v. Alabama Fuel & Iron Co.
73 So. 525 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Fuller v. Lanett Bleaching Co.
65 So. 61 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1914)
Winslow Bros. v. Murphy
77 S.E. 25 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1913)
Suwannee Turpentine Co. v. Baxter & Co.
35 S.E. 142 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 S.E. 490, 89 Ga. 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-sexton-ga-1892.