Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith

Decision Date30 March 1939
Docket Number6 Div. 394.
Citation238 Ala. 121,189 So. 198
PartiesWILKEY ET AL. v. STATE EX REL. SMITH.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied May 4, 1939.

Further Rehearing Denied June 8, 1939.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Edgar Bowron, Judge.

Quo warranto by the State of Alabama, on the relation of Jim C Smith, and Jim C. Smith, against J. L. Wilkey and J. L Wilkey, Adjuster, Inc. From a judgment of ouster, respondents appeal.

Reversed and remanded.

In quo warranto proceedings charging respondents with practicing law without license, special plea of respondents that respondents were not employees of casualty and fire insurance companies "in ordinary sense," nor "in privity" with such companies but were engaged in insurance adjustment business representing regular clientele, showed that their acts of settling claims for such companies constituted "practice of law" prohibited by statute. Code 1923 § 9932, par. 1; Gen.Acts 1931, p. 606.

The amended information is in substance as follows:

"Third: That J. L. Wilkey Adjuster, Inc., a corporation, was organized on the 2nd day of January, 1932, in Jefferson County, Alabama, and has its principal office or place of business in said City of Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama, and said defendant corporation is still existing and being operated in Jefferson County, Alabama.
"Fourth: That Plaintiffs are informed and have probable cause to believe and do believe and, therefore, aver the facts to be: That the defendants, J. L. Wilkey and J. L. Wilkey, Adjuster, Inc., a corporation, which corporation from the time of its creation has been managed, controlled and practically owned by the individual defendant, J. L. Wilkey, who still manages, controls and practically owns said corporation, have been continuously since, towit: in January, 1932, and still are intruding into the profession of the practice of law in Jefferson County, Alabama and elsewhere in this State, and unlawfully practicing law in Jefferson County, Alabama, and elsewhere in this State, which is a profession requiring a license, or certificate or other legal authorization within this State, without having obtained such license or certificate or other legal authorization within this State.
"Wherefore, premises considered: Your Plaintiffs pray:
"1. That process or writ in the nature of quo warranto issue as provided by law, requiring and commanding the said J. L. Wilkey and J. L. Wilkey, Adjuster, Inc., a corporation, separately and severally, to show by what warrant or authority they, separately and severally, are and have been intruding into the profession of law and practicing said profession of law in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama, and elsewhere in this State;
"2. That upon final hearing of this cause the said J. L. Wilkey and J. L. Wilkey, Adjuster, Inc., a corporation, separately and severally, be excluded or be prohibited from practicing such profession in Jefferson County, Alabama, or elsewhere in the State of Alabama, until such time when they or either of them, respectively may become legally licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama;
"3. That all such other, further and different orders and processes be made and issued by the Court as the law in such case may provide, and that such other, further, general or different relief be granted and adjudged to the Plaintiffs as the nature of this case may require;
"4. That the Plaintiffs be adjudged in this cause to recover costs of these proceedings against said defendants, separately and severally."

Defendant filed pleas among others, as follows:

"1. The defendants and neither of them is guilty of the matters and things therein alleged.
"2. The allegations of said petition are untrue."

Plea 13 is as follows:

"The defendants, and each of them, are employed by several casualty and fire insurance companies and liability carriers and in this employment when one of the said companies by itself or its representative, advises the defendants that an accident or fire has occurred which involves an assured of such company, the defendants, in behalf and on request of such companies, investigate such accident or fire loss by interviewing witnesses and by taking down in writing statements of said witnesses, by having the physical damages to the person or property of the parties to such accident or fire reported on by physicians or repair men, as the case may be, in order to determine the severity of physical injuries or extent of property damage sustained by the parties involved, from such accidents or fire, which facts are reported by defendants to their said employers and, in those cases where the employers so direct, these defendants endeavor to settle such claims for physical injury or property damage sustained by such parties from such accident or fire by payment of a sum satisfactory to such injured or damaged party or parties, and to the said employers of these defendants; and in all such cases where such settlement cannot be made, then these defendants refer to the legal representatives of their said employers the said facts, statements of witnesses and other information developed by these defendants on such investigation, to be handled by such legal representatives. These defendants further say that the above are the only acts done or business in which these defendants are now engaged or propose to engage in future, and that all of the acts and things so done by these defendants, as above detailed, are all done under the orders and superintendence of the legal department of defendants said employers. These defendants further say that they do not represent plaintiffs or individual claimants, nor seek to do so, but are only employed by companies against which claims are made or may be made growing out of or incident to an accident or fire, as aforesaid.

"The type or kind of business done and the method of conducting their business as herein set out is not only the type, method, manner and course of business employed or engaged in by the defendants and each of them at the time of the institution of this suit, and for a long time, towit more than a year, prior thereto, but is the only type, method, manner and course of business or activity engaged in by defendants or either of them since the filing of this complaint or that they propose or claim the right to engage in at any time in the future. They further aver that during the times herein before stated they and neither of them are employed by or act for any other person, firm or corporation in any capacity whatsoever, except said insurance companies above described and that they bear the relation of employee to employer in the ordinary sense as well as the legal sense to each of said insurance companies. The business engaged in by the defendants is known as 'insurance adjuster' and as such is provided for by the revenue laws of the State of Alabama and by the License laws of the City of Birmingham, and the defendants have duly and legally paid to the State of Alabama, the County of Jefferson and the City of Birmingham their licenses to transact the said business carried on by them for the year of 1932 and many years prior thereto and for each year since the year 1932. The defendants are not now, have not within the time hereinbefore stated, and do not claim the right to nor propose in the future to engage in or intrude into the practice of the profession of law in Jefferson County or in the State of Alabama or elsewhere."

The decree appealed from is in pertinent part as follows:

"Now therefore, it is hereby ordered and adjudged by the Court that the said defendants, J. L. Wilkey and J. L. Wilkey, Adjuster, Inc., a corporation, are now and have been continuously since, to-wit: in January, 1932, unlawfully intruding into the profession of the practice of law in Jefferson County, Alabama, and elsewhere in this State, and unlawfully practicing law in Jefferson County, Alabama, and elsewhere in this State, which is a profession requiring a license or certificate, or other legal authorization within this state, without having obtained such license or certificate or other legal authorization within this State.

"It is further ordered and adjudged by the Court that the defendants, J. L. Wilkey and J. L. Wilkey, Adjuster, Inc., a corporation, be and they, separately and severally, are hereby excluded from and prohibited from practicing the profession of law, or from practicing law in Jefferson County, Alabama, and elsewhere in this State of Alabama, until such time when they or either of them, respectively, may become legally licensed to practice law in the State of Alabama; and in this respect said defendants, separately and severally, are hereby specially enjoined and restrained from engaging or doing the following matters and things, separately and severally, which are such matters and things as do constitute the practice of law, viz:

"(a) In a representative capacity appearing as an advocate or drawing papers, pleadings or documents, or performing any court or a Justice of the Peace, or a body, board, committee, commission or officer constituted by law or having authority to take evidence in or settle or determine controversies in the exercise of the judicial power of the state or subdivision thereof;
"(b) For a consideration, reward or pecuniary benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect, advising or counseling another as to secular law, or drawing or procuring or assisting in the drawing of a paper,
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Wilkey v. State ex rel. Smith
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 13 Mayo 1943
  • American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Banco Nacional De Nicaragua, Inc., 1 Div. 17.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 11 Mayo 1939
    ... ... appellant ... Smith & ... Johnston and Chas. B. Arendall, Jr., all of Mobile, for ... 'A-1' (page 1) ... "Each ... draft must state on its face that it is drawn under ... American National Bank & Trust ... ...
  • Ancora Corp. v. Miller Oil Purchasing Co.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 30 Enero 1981
    ...v. Austin, 266 Ala. 128, 130, 94 So.2d 391, 392 (1957); Skelton v. Tyner, 247 Ala. 511, 513, 25 So.2d 160 (1946); Wilkey v. State, 238 Ala. 121, 127, 189 So. 198 (1939). Due to the privity that Miller possess in relation to Ancora-Citronelle, Ancora is precluded from raising against Miller ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT