Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Ass'n of Ark., No. 5-1789
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Writing for the Court | JOHNSON; GEORGE ROSE SMITH |
| Citation | 326 S.W.2d 900,230 Ark. 494 |
| Parties | BEACH ABSTRACT & GUARANTY CO. et al., Appellants, v. BAR ASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS et al., Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 5-1789 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1959 |
Page 900
v.
BAR ASSOCIATION OF ARKANSAS et al., Appellees.
As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 21, 1959.
[230 Ark. 495] Catlett & Henderson, Little Rock, for Beach Abstract & guaranty co.
Rose, Meek, House, Barron & Nash, Little Rock, for Little Rock Abstract Co.
Gentry & Gentry, Little Rock, John A. Fogleman, West Memphis, Eugene A. Matthews, Hot Springs, John H. Lookadoo, Arkadelphia, J. M. Smallwood, Russellville, Max B. Reid, Blytheville, Lamar Williamson, Monticello, of counsel.
Terrell Marshall, E. A. Henry, Little Rock, Joe C. Barrett, Jonesboro, for appellee.
JOHNSON, Justice.
This suit was instituted by appellee Bar Association of Arkansas, acting through its proper committee (joined by the local Bar Association of Pulaski County) praying a
Page 901
declaratory judgment holding that the conduct and procedure of appellants, Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co., et al., in certain enumerated instances are unlawful and constitute unauthorized practice of law.After hearing testimony relative to certain activities on the part of the appellants alleged to constitute unlawful practice, the Chancellor sustained appellees' contentions and in addition to rendering a declaratory judgment against appellants, the court also enjoined them from further engaging in such alleged unauthorized practice. From this decision comes this appeal.
The appellants have set out four separate and distinct grounds upon which they rely for a reversal. However, in view of the disposition which we hereafter make of this case, we deem it unnecessary to discuss these points separately or in detail.
The facts are substantially undisputed. The trial court's exceptionally well written findings of facts are as follows:
[230 Ark. 496] 'The defendants, Beach Abstract & Guaranty Company and Little Rock Abstract Company, are corporations duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Arkansas, having their principal offices in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, and in addition to usual and ordinary business powers are organized for the specific purposes and are duly authorized to operate and maintain abstract of title plants, and are authorized to and are engaged in the preparation of abstracts of title, the solicitation and issuance of title insurance policies as general agents for title insurance companies, and in acting as escrow agents in connection with insuring titles and in closing real estate sales. Neither defendant has been, nor can be, admitted to the practice of law in this State.
'The defendant companies, and each of them, acting by and through persons employed by them, in connection with the conduct of their several businesses and in connection with transactions in which the said companies, as such, have no direct interest, have been and are regularly and continuously drafting some or all of the instruments and performing some or all of the functions for their numerous clients, patrons and customers as hereinafter enumerated, to wit:
'(a) Drafting and preparation of warranty deeds, disclaimer deeds and quitclaim deeds.
'(b) Drafting and preparation of promissory notes, real estate mortgages, real estate purchase contracts and related instruments.
'(c) Drafting and preparation of forms of agreement for the sale of real estate, chattels, and choses in action.
'(d) Drafting and preparation of mortgages and pledges of personal property.
'(e) Drafting and preparation of forms of conveyances naming husband and wife as grantees.
[230 Ark. 497] '(f) Drafting and preparation of bills of assurance, dedication instruments, and tract and sub-division restrictions.
'(g) Drafting and preparation of escrow instructions, setting forth agreements between buyers and sellers, and the rights and liabilities of buyers and sellers.
'(h) Drafting and preparation of affidavits of completion of improvements, affidavits of marital status and heirship, and various and sundry additional forms of affidavits and other instruments to remove clouds and perfect titles.
'The drafting and preparation of the instruments and the performance of the functions hereinabove enumerated was done for the most part in connection with escrow services and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., No. 10–575.
...practice of law—the attempt to practice law by a nonlawyer. See, e.g., Beach Abstract & Guar. Co. v. Bar Ass'n of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W.2d 900 (1959). This is the type of unauthorized practice of law alleged by Campbell, and we must determine whether the [2011 Ark. 9]General A......
-
McKenzie v. Burris, No. 73--73
...association. See Arkansas Bar Association v. Union National Bank, supra; Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Association of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W.2d 900. This is generally accepted as a proper form of relief, particularly where class actions are involved. See Conway-Bogue Rea......
-
R. J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert, Nos. 40338
...v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76, 366 P.2d 1 (1961); Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Assoc. of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W.2d 910 (1930); Arkansas Bar Assoc. v. Union Nat. Bank, 224 Ark. 48, 273 S.W.2d 408 (1954); Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647, 320 P.2d 16......
-
New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. Northern New Jersey Mortg. Associates, Nos. A--98
...& Trust Co. v. State Bar of Nevada, 326 P.2d 408 (Nev.Sup.Ct.1958) and Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Ass'n of Arkansas, 326 S.W.2d 900 (Ark.Sup.Ct.1959) [161 A.2d 262] with La Brum v. Commonwalth Title Co. of Philadelphia, 358 Pa. 239, 56 A.2d 246 (Sup.Ct.1948) and Cooperman ......
-
Campbell v. Asbury Auto., Inc., No. 10–575.
...practice of law—the attempt to practice law by a nonlawyer. See, e.g., Beach Abstract & Guar. Co. v. Bar Ass'n of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W.2d 900 (1959). This is the type of unauthorized practice of law alleged by Campbell, and we must determine whether the [2011 Ark. 9]General A......
-
McKenzie v. Burris, No. 73--73
...association. See Arkansas Bar Association v. Union National Bank, supra; Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Association of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W.2d 900. This is generally accepted as a proper form of relief, particularly where class actions are involved. See Conway-Bogue Rea......
-
R. J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert, Nos. 40338
...v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76, 366 P.2d 1 (1961); Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Assoc. of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W.2d 910 (1930); Arkansas Bar Assoc. v. Union Nat. Bank, 224 Ark. 48, 273 S.W.2d 408 (1954); Biakanja v. Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647, 320 P.2d 16......
-
New Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. Northern New Jersey Mortg. Associates, Nos. A--98
...& Trust Co. v. State Bar of Nevada, 326 P.2d 408 (Nev.Sup.Ct.1958) and Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Ass'n of Arkansas, 326 S.W.2d 900 (Ark.Sup.Ct.1959) [161 A.2d 262] with La Brum v. Commonwalth Title Co. of Philadelphia, 358 Pa. 239, 56 A.2d 246 (Sup.Ct.1948) and Cooperman ......