Strohecker v. Irvine

76 Ga. 639
Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided May 1, 1886·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Blandford, Justice.

. The question here is, whether the lien of an attorney for services done and performed in defending a homestead against creditors and in preserving the same for the benefit of the beneficiaries therein is good and binding on the property so set apart ? We answer that it is. It is in the nature of labor done and purchase money thereon. Public policy demands this answer. Without some security of this sort those who are entitled to homestead exemptions might entirely fail of their rights without the benefit of the services of a lawyer; these services in procuring the land are as sacred and important as the services of the carpenter in building the house thereon, and stand upon the like footing of justice and equity.

Footnotes

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

Strohecker v. Irvine, 76 Ga. 639 (Ga. 1886).

76 Ga. 639 (Strohecker v. Irvine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pate v. Morrow
87 S.E.2d 357 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1955)
Prudential Insurance v. Byrd
4 S.E.2d 175 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1939)
Zehr v. May
1917 OK 578 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1917)
McLean v. Lerch
105 Tenn. 693 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1900)
Haygood v. Dannenberg Co.
29 S.E. 293 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1897)