Chambers v. McDonald

Decision Date24 June 1980
Docket NumberNo. 60022,60022
CitationChambers v. McDonald, 270 S.E.2d 283, 155 Ga.App. 56 (Ga. App. 1980)
PartiesCHAMBERS et al. v. McDONALD.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

John W. Chambers, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.

Louis F. McDonald, Atlanta, for appellee.

McMURRAY, Presiding Judge.

John W. Chambers and Ernest G. Robinson, Jr., as lawyers, leased office space to Louis F. McDonald, another lawyer, in 1975 and a part of 1976.Clifford D. Henry was a client of Chambers and Robinson.In 1975 Henry met with these counsel with reference to seeking an injunction to prevent the foreclosure of certain property.McDonald was to perform legal work and proceeded to do other legal work thereafter for Henry.Henry contends that as a client of Chambers and Robinson he had paid them for the legal work and that he did not owe McDonald for said legal work.Chambers and Robinson contend that they never promised or agreed to pay McDonald for the legal work, but that he performed it for Henry, not for them.McDonald contends that all three agreed to pay him for the legal work that he performed for Henry.McDonald eventually moved his office, at which time he owed Chambers and Robinson for one month's rent of $600.

Thereafter, in Cobb Superior Court, McDonald sued Henry as a resident of Cobb County and Chambers and Robinson as residents of DeKalb County, seeking judgment for legal services rendered by the plaintiff at the request of the defendants in the amount of $1,987.50.The parties were served.Henry answered, denying the claim and admitting jurisdiction.Further answering, with reference to the services rendered, he stated that "if any were rendered by plaintiff, (same) were rendered as an employee or associate of defendant, . . . Chambers, who was representing this defendant in that litigation and this defendant has paid . . . Chambers in full for services rendered in connection with those cases."Defendants Chambers and Robinson answered, denying the claim in its entirety and denying that they were subject to the jurisdiction of the Cobb Countycourt.However, by counterclaim they sought the sum of $600 "for rent, secretarial services, telephone, and general overhead furnished to plaintiff."

After discovery the case proceeded to trial based upon a pretrial order.The evidence was in considerable conflict as to who was to pay for the legal services performed by the plaintiff.Both plaintiff and defendants Chambers and Robinson agreed that the $600, amount of the counterclaim, was past due.The trial court instructed the jury that since the plaintiff had admitted owing the $600 the counterclaim was withdrawn from the jury "and I will cover that in my judgment."The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants Chambers and Robinson in the amount of $1,987.50.The defendants moved to dismiss the claim as found by the jury in favor of defendant Henry, the only defendant resident of Cobb County, Georgia.This motion was reduced to writing, and the defendants likewise filed a voluntary dismissal of the counterclaim "without prejudice," both on August 28, 1979, the jury verdict having been dated and filed August 27, 1979.

On October 22, 1979, the trial court entered its findings of fact in general as set forth above and conclusions of law with reference to the motion as to whether the court had lost jurisdiction over the nonresident defendants when the jury found in favor of the resident defendant but against the nonresident defendants and whether after the jury had returned its verdict but before entry of final judgment the remaining defendants could voluntarily dismiss their counterclaim, citing Steding Pile Driving Corp. v. John H. Cunningham & Assoc., 137 Ga.App. 165, 166(1, 2), 223 S.E.2d 217andBerger v. Noble, 81 Ga.App. 759,...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 2001
  • In re Cunningham
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • October 17, 2006
    ...205, 121 S.E.2d 640 (1961); Vanguard Insurance Co. v. Beasley, 167 Ga.App. 625, 626, 307 S.E.2d 56, 58 (1983); Chambers v. McDonald, 155 Ga.App. 56, 58, 270 S.E.2d 283, 285 (1980); Burger v. Noble, 81 Ga. App. 759, 761, 59 S.E.2d 761, 762 In the instant case, defendant failed to raise the v......
  • Vanguard Ins. Co. v. Beasley
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 12, 1983
    ...case. Burger, supra; Butler, supra at 448, 192 S.E. 835. See Harley v. Harley, 217 Ga. 205, 121 S.E.2d 640 (1961); Chambers v. McDonald, 155 Ga.App. 56, 270 S.E.2d 283 (1980); Wilson v. Betsill, 148 Ga.App. 260, 261(1), 251 S.E.2d 144 Appellant urges that its counsel had no knowledge of the......
  • Bowen v. Ken-Mar Const. Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • June 24, 1980
  • Get Started for Free