Brown v. Pool

• Decision Date: 02 January 1922
• Docket Number: 22075
• Citation: 90 So. 179,127 Miss. 488
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BROWN v. POOL

90 So. 179

127 Miss. 488

BROWN v. POOL

No. 22075

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 2, 1922

ATTORNEY AND CLIENT. Summary remedy by motion against an attorney can be maintained only by the client.

The summary remedy by motion against an attorney, authorized by section 225, Code 1906 (Hemingway's Code, section 202) can only be maintained by the client.

HON. A J. MCLAURIN, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Newton county, HON. A. J. MCLAURIN Judge.

Petition by R. L. Pool, alleging that T. C. Brown, an attorney at law had represented him in a prosecution styled R. L. Pool v. J. M. Linton to compel an accounting for money alleged collected therein. Default judgment for petitioner, and order entered that the attorney be disbarred from practicing law until the judgment was paid, and the attorney appeals. Reversed and dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

T. C. Brown and Clayton D. Potter, for appellant.

OPINION

COOK, J.

Appellee, R. L. Pool, filed a motion or petition in the circuit court of Newton county, alleging in substance that T. C. Brown, an attorney at law, had represented him as his attorney in the prosecution of a certain cause styled R. L. Pool v. J. M. Linton, and, after final judgment, had collected thereon the sum of thirty-seven dollars which he had failed to pay over to petitioner, and praying that this attorney be summoned to appear and render an accounting as the statute in such case provides. The petition prayed that the record in the cause in which it was alleged appellant, Brown, had represented appellee should be made a part of the petition, but the exhibit filed with the petition consisted of the record in a case styled Mrs. Mattie Skinner, Executrix of the Estate of Mrs. L. J. Pool, Deceased, v. J. M. Linton.

In response to process served upon him, appellant appeared at the return term and filed his answer to the motion. This answer set up, among other things, that the motion filed against him does not show that demand had been made as required by statute; that the record filed as an exhibit to appellee's motion affirmatively shows that he did not represent appellee, R. L. Pool, in the litigation referred to; that the record of the suit in question shows that he had successfully represented Mrs. Mattie Skinner, executrix, in the justice, circuit and supreme courts; that his fees for services rendered in this litigation had not been fully paid and that the said Mrs....