Birmingham Bar Ass'n v. Phillips & Marsh
Decision Date | 28 March 1940 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 604. |
Citation | 239 Ala. 650,196 So. 725 |
Parties | BIRMINGHAM BAR ASS'N v. PHILLIPS & MARSH ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1940.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Richard V. Evans Judge.
Proceeding by the Birmingham Bar Association against Phillips & Marsh Inc., and others, to suppress alleged unlawful practice of law. From a judgment of non-suit, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Where there is breach of duty to public, remedy of quo warranto is available in name of state by any member of public upon a compliance with the statute. Code 1923, § 9929 et seq.
The specifications set forth in the petition are as follows:
Horace C. Wilkinson and Wm. S. Pritchard, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
W. M. Rogers, E. L. All, and W. H. Forlines, all of Birmingham, Dan MacDougald, of Atlanta, Ga., Bradley, Baldwin, All & White, of Birmingham, MacDougald, Troutman & Arkwright, of Atlanta, Ga., McCorvey, McLeod, Turner & Rogers, of Mobile, Alexander A. Marks, of Montgomery, and Coleman Spain, Stewart & Davies, Mead & Moebes, Lange, Simpson, Brantley & Robinson, Herbert J. Ward, and p>Page James A. Simpson, all of Birmingham, for appellees.
Birmingham Bar Association instituted a proceeding in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County with the ultimate purpose of putting an end to the alleged practice of law in Jefferson County by unlicensed individuals, associations and corporations connected with the insurance business.
Demurrers were sustained to the petition, complaint, or bill in equity as originally filed and as amended. Because of these adverse rulings a non-suit was taken. The appeal is to review such rulings. The initial pleading was filed on the law side, summons issued by the clerk and served on the several respondents.
The numerous parties respondent or defendant, omitting one designated as "Official Respondent," are divided into three classes:
(1) "Claim Adjusting Respondents," three corporations and one individual, charged with engaging in the unlawful practice of law, separately and severally, through their officers, agents, or employees, as set out in specifications, (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) which appear in the report of the case. Specifications (J) (K) (L) and (M) added by the amended petition or complaint also appear in the report of the case.
(2) The second class of respondents is designated as "Individual Respondents," alleged to be the acting officers, employees, or agents of the "Claim Adjusting Respondents" through whom these adjustment companies or bureaus are engaged in the unlawful practice of law as specified.
(3) "Accessory Respondents." These are numerous insurance companies doing business in Jefferson County, some in the fire insurance business and the like, and some in the various forms of casualty insurance. They are charged with aiding and abetting the unauthorized practice of law, separately and severally, in employing the "Claim Adjusting Respondents" and the "Individual Respondents, or one or more of them, to commit one or more of the aforesaid acts enumerated" in the specifications.
The amended prayer reads:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donoghue v. Bunkley
... ... So. 833; Judd v. Dowdell, 244 Ala. 230, 12 So.2d ... 858; Birmingham Bar Ass'n v. Phillips, 239 Ala ... 650, 196 So. 725; Glass v ... ...
-
Portland General Elec. Co. v. City of Estacada
...raise the question by quo warranto, and that the declaratory judgments act had not changed the situation. In Birmingham Bar Ass'n v. Phillips & Marsh, 239 Ala. 650, 196 So. 725, 732, a declaratory judgment proceeding was brought to determine whether certain individuals and corporations enga......
-
Bessemer Bar Ass'n v. Fitzpatrick
... ... [196 So. 734] ... Horace ... C. Wilkinson, of Birmingham, for petitioner ... Gardner ... Goodwyn, of Bessemer, pro se ... petition. Birmingham Bar Association v. Phillips & Marsh ... et al., Ala.Sup., 196 So. 725 ... The ... ...
-
Imbornone v. Early
...and persons within the judicial system. Webster Eisenlohr, Inc. v. Calodner, 145 F.2d 316 (3rd Cir. 1944); Birmingham Bar Association v. Phillips, 239 Ala. 650, 196 So. 725 (1940); Clark v. Austin, 340 Mo. 467, 101 S.W.2d 977 (1937). Some of the underlying policy considerations for careful ......