Adkins v. Bryant

• Citation: 66 S.E. 21,133 Ga. 465
• Parties: ADKINS. v. BRYANT.
• Decision Date: 17 November 1909
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

(133 Ga. 465)

66 S.E. 21

ADKINS.

v.BRYANT.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 17, 1909.

1. Judgment (§ 72^*)—On Consent—Agreement or Counsel—Binding Effect.

A verdict and judgment rendered with the consent of counsel is binding upon the client, in the absence of fraud and collusion upon the part of the counsel with whose consent such verdict and judgment is rendered.

LEd. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. § 130; Dec. Dig. § 72.*]

2. Judgment (§ 90*)—Vacating.

Under the facts in this case the court did not err in denying the motion to set aside and vacate the judgment attacked.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Judgment, Cent. Dig. §§ 148, 149; Dec. Dig. § 90.*]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Crawford County; W. H. Felton, Judge.

Action by Anna G. Adkins against W. T. Bryant. Decree for defendant. From mo tion refusing to vacate the same, plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

M. G. Bayne, for plaintiff in error.

L. D. Moore, for defendant in error.

BECK, J. The plaintiff in error, Mrs. Anna G. Adkins, made a motion to set aside and vacate the verdict and decree rendered at the preceding term of the court in a cause there pending between herself and W. T. Bryant, the defendant in error here. The motion was based upon the following grounds: "(1) Because the said verdict and decree was entered into without plaintiff's consent. (2) Because the said verdict and decree was entered into without any authority from her, but was made without her consent by counsel." A rule to show cause was issued upon this motion, and at the hearing the movant testified that, in the case in which the judgment was rendered which she now seeks to have set aside, her attorney at law, representing her in the case at the time the judgment was rendered, without her knowledge and consent agreed to the verdict and judgment as rendered; that the verdict and judgment so rendered fixed a certain "dividing land line, by which she lost a part of a lot of land"; that she never ratified the agreement of her attorney, nor the verdict and judgment, in any way; and that she was not in court when said verdict and judgment was agreed to by her attorney. The record of the former suit was introduced, as well as the verdict and judgment agreed to, and the latter showed that a different line was established between the parties to the action from the one claimed in her suit. The court, after hearing the evidence, denied the motion.

It will be observed that neither in the motion nor in the evidence is there anything upon which to base a charge of fraud upon the part of counsel who represented the plaintiff in error here in agreeing to the verdict and judgment which she sought to have set aside. The argument of counsel for the plaintiff in error in his brief, wherein it is contended that a different ruling from that made by the court below should have been made, because of fraud...