Moore v. Garrett

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Moore v. Garrett

93 S.E. 112, 20 Ga. App. 474, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 937

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 5, 1917

Docket8177

StatusPublished

This text of 93 S.E. 112 (Moore v. Garrett) 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

Moore v. Garrett, 93 S.E. 112, 20 Ga. App. 474, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 937 (Ga. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, J.

1. Where a person employs an attorney to bring suit on a note secured by a deed to land, and, in order to pay off an outstanding claim against the land, turns over to his attorney money for that purpose, but, owing to subsequent developments pertaining to the outstanding lien, directs his attorney not to make the payment indicated, and afterwards demands the return of the money, the attorney, on withholding the money, is subject to rule under the provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 4954.

2. Where the petition for the rule admits liability of the movant to the attorney in a named amount, and asks only that the attorney be required to pay over the difference between that amount and' the sum so withheld, and where the attorney in his answer to the rule sets up other and larger sums claimed by him to be due him by the movant, on which pleading an issue is made, and a verdict is returned by> the jury in favor of the movant, and judgment thereon is entered according to law, the judgment will not be disturbed, where it appears that under the evidence the jury could have found in accordance with the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

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

Jenkins, J.

1. Where a person employs an attorney to bring suit on a note secured by a deed to land, and, in order to pay off an outstanding claim against the land, turns over to his attorney money for that purpose, but, owing to subsequent developments pertaining to the outstanding lien, directs his attorney not to make the payment indicated, and afterwards demands the return of the money, the attorney, on withholding the money, is subject to rule under the provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 4954.

2. Where the petition for the rule admits liability of the movant to the attorney in a named amount, and asks only that the attorney be required to pay over the difference between that amount and' the sum so withheld, and where the attorney in his answer to the rule sets up other and larger sums claimed by him to be due him by the movant, on which pleading an issue is made, and a verdict is returned by> the jury in favor of the movant, and judgment thereon is entered according to law, the judgment will not be disturbed, where it appears that under the evidence the jury could have found in accordance with the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, P. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 S.E. 112, 20 Ga. App. 474, 1917 Ga. App. LEXIS 937, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-garrett-gactapp-1917.