Coleman v. Austin
| Decision Date | 02 November 1896 |
| Parties | COLEMAN et al. v. AUSTIN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Attorneys at Law — Liens — Prerequisites — Election—Rights of Creditors.
1. In order to render the lien of an attorney at law upon property recovered by him in behalf of his client, or upon property the title to which in a suit therefor he has successfully defended, binding upon bona fide purchasers of such property, it is incumbent on the attorney to file, as provided in section 1980 of the Code, his assertion claiming a lien on the property in question; but such filing is not essential to the validity of the lien as between the attorney and his client, or as between him and other creditors of the latter.
2. An attorney's lien may, as against the liens of other creditors, be enforced against a portion of the property covered thereby and satisfied out of its proceeds, although he has permitted other portions of such property to be sold under executions not his own, without asserting his lien or claiming the proceeds of the sales; and this is true though the other creditors could not have subjected the property thus sold to their liens, it not appearing that they took any steps to compel an election by him to make his money out of property which he could reach and they could not.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from superior court, Carroll county; S. W. Harris, Judge.
Proceeding between J. P. Coleman and others and Mrs. S. E. Austin. There was a judgment for the latter, and the former bring error. Affirmed.
Oscar Reese and W. C. Adamson, for plaintiffs in error.
Sidney Holderness, for defendant in error.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griner v. Foskey, 61901
... ... 67-20 in order to recover. Coleman v. Austin, 99 Ga. 629, 27 S.E. 763 (1896). Where a contract between attorney and client is not in writing the statute of limitations on the debt is ... ...
-
Hester v. Chalker, A96A1746
... ... Id. at 770, 282 S.E.2d 150. Because the lien was filed and recorded, it was good against Sullivan. See Coleman v. Austin, 99 Ga. 629, 27 S.E. 763 (1896); Burgin & Sons Glass Co. v. McIntire, 7 Ga.App. 755, 758(1), 68 S.E. 490 (1910) ... ...
-
Merch.S' Nat. Bank Of Rome v. Armstrong
...by decisions of this court Civ. Code, § 2814; Fry v. Calder, 74 Ga. 7; Lovett v. Moore, 98 Ga. 158, 20 S. E. 498; Coleman v. Austin, 99 Ga. 029, 27 S. E. 763. But we gather from the grounds of the demurrer filed to the intervention that it is insisted by counsel for plaintiff in error that ......
-
Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Armstrong
...by decisions of this court. Civ. Code, § 2814; Fry v. Calder, 74 Ga. 7; Lovett v. Moore, 98 Ga. 158, 26 S.E. 498; Coleman v. Austin, 99 Ga. 629, 27 S.E. 763. But gather from the grounds of the demurrer filed to the intervention that it is insisted by counsel for plaintiff in error that atto......