Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Haldane

Supreme Court of Georgia

Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Haldane

187 S.E. 68, 182 Ga. 833, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 577

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJuly 11, 1936

DocketNo. 10995

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 187 S.E. 68 (Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Haldane) 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

Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Haldane, 187 S.E. 68, 182 Ga. 833, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 577 (Ga. 1936).

Pincite

Opinions

Pee Curiam.

Assuming that tlie plaintiff, as an attorney at law, had such interest in the subject-matter of the litigation as to authorize him to institute the action, the evidence (consisting of the pleadings and an agreed statement) was insufficient to show that the defendant corporation and its agent were engaged in the practice of law. Eor this reason the court erred in granting an injunction.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur except Russell, O. J., and Bell, J., who cKssent, and Gilbert, J., absent.

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

Pee Curiam.

Assuming that tlie plaintiff, as an attorney at law, had such interest in the subject-matter of the litigation as to authorize him to institute the action, the evidence (consisting of the pleadings and an agreed statement) was insufficient to show that the defendant corporation and its agent were engaged in the practice of law. Eor this reason the court erred in granting an injunction.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur except Russell, O. J., and Bell, J., who cKssent, and Gilbert, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 S.E. 68, 182 Ga. 833, 1936 Ga. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sharp-boylston-co-v-haldane-ga-1936.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack