Cooper v. Mann
| Decision Date | 26 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 413 |
| Citation | 143 So.2d 637,273 Ala. 620 |
| Parties | Charles COOPER et al. v. Ida Bee MANN. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Reeves & Stewart, Selma, for appellants.
Glen T. Bashore, Clanton, for appellee.
This is the second appeal in this case. 269 Ala. 505, 114 So.2d 267.
Ida Bee Man brought suit in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama, in Equity, against Charles Cooper, Ellen Taylor Cooper and E. A. Stewart.
The bill of complaint is in one aspect and seeks discovery, and prays that respondents be required to answer certain interrogatories exhibited to the bill (Exhibit A, interrogatories to Charles Cooper; Exhibit B, interrogatories to Ellen Taylor Cooper; Exhibit, C, interrogatories to E. A. Stewart).
In substance, the bill of complaint alleges that on February, 6, 1957, complainant recovered of Charles Cooper, one of the respondents, a judgment in the amount of $75,00, in the Circuit Court of Autauga County, Alabama, at law, and there remains a balance due on said judgment of $6550, plus costs and interest; that Charles Cooper has no visible property subject to levy and execution; that on March 17, 1958, respondent, Charles Cooper, recovered a judgment for $10,762.25 against Central Surety & Insurance Corporation in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, and that said judgment was satisfied on December 22, 1958, by E. A. Stewart, as attorney for Charles Cooper; that the alleged proceeds of the judgment of Cooper against the Central Surety & Insurance Corporation has been paid and is subject to levy and execution.
[273 Ala. 622] Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the bill of complaint are as follows:
'6. That E. A. Stewart is the attorney for Charles Cooper and has custody, control or possession of proceeds of the said judgment against Central Surety and Insurance Corporation, the property of Charles Cooper, or has knowledge of the whereabouts of such proceeds, or of other assets of the said Charles Cooper.
'7. That Ellen Taylor Cooper is the wife of Charles Cooper and resides with him at Burnsville, Alabama, and has custody, control or possession of said proceeds, the property of Charles Cooper, or has knowledge of the location of same or of other assets of Charles Cooper.
8. That Charles Cooper has custody, control or possession of said proceeds or money, and has other assets unknown to the Complainant.'
It is further alleged that complainant has been unable to locate said money or other assets of Charles Cooper, which are being concealed, and only through equity can they be subjected to levy and sale under execution.
The prayer of the bill seeks to have each respondent answer the interrogatories propounded to each, separately.
Each respondent demurred to the bill, separately. The demurrers were overruled and the respondents appealed.
The bill of complaint shows on its face that respondent, E. A. Stewart, is the attorney for Charles Cooper in and about the collection of the judgment of Cooper against the Central Surety & Insurance Corporation, and that respondent, Ellen Taylor Cooper is the wife of respondent, Charles Cooper.
The demurrers of both Cooper and Stewart take the point that the bill of complaint establishes an attorney-client relationship existing between Cooper and Stewart at the time the information sought by the interrogatories was received by Stewart, and further that there is a misjoinder of parties respondents.
It is generally held, in absence of statute, that communications between attorney and client are privileged and neither attorney nor client can be compelled to testify as to the contents of such communications. Birmingham Railway & Electric Co. v. Wildman, 119 Ala. 547, 24 So. 548; 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, Sec. 460.
The term 'communication' imports not only words uttered, but information conveyed by any other means. Therefore, sight is just as privileged as hearing, and privilege applies to all knowledge acquired in either instance, where acquisition is due to the attorney-client relation. 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, Sec. 486. Acts as well as words fall within the privileged. Ex parte McDonough, 170 Cal. 230, 149 P. 566, L.R.A.1916C, 593.
Our statute fully recognizes the foregoing principles. Sec. 438, Title 7, Code of 1940, reads as follows:
'No attorney or his clerk shall be competent or compelled to testify in any court in this state, for or against the client, as to any matter or thing knowledge of which may have been acquired from the client, or as to advice or counsel to the client given by virtue of the relation as attorney or given by reason of anticipated employment as attorney, unless called to testify by the client, but shall be competent to testify, for or against the client, as to any matter or thing knowledge of which may have been acquired in any other manner.'
We are cited to no Alabama case, nor has our research revealed a case, where the question here posed has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howell v. Alfa Ins. Corp. (In re Alfa Ins. Corp.)
...consulted professionally, nor can the client be required to divulge the advice that his attorney gave him."); Cooper v. Mann, 273 Ala. 620, 622, 143 So.2d 637, 638–39 (1962) ("It is generally held, in absence of statute, that communications between attorney and client are privileged and nei......
-
Crosslin v. State, 8 Div. 533
...spouse from testifying to any conversation or action performed in the privacy of the marriage." Arnold, 353 So. at 526; Cooper v. Mann, 273 Ala. 620, 143 So.2d 637 (1962). Appellant cites four statements from the transcript of Mrs. Crosslin's testimony at appellant's preliminary hearing whi......
-
United States v. Woodall
...for or against the client, as to any matter or thing knowledge of which may have been acquired in any other manner." In Cooper v. Mann, 1962, 273 Ala. 620, 143 So.2d 637, the Supreme Court of Alabama, interpreted this statute as "It is generally held, in absence of statute, that communicati......
-
Howell v. Alfa Ins. Corp. (Ex parte Alfa Ins. Corp.)
...which he was consulted professionally, nor can the client be required to divulge the advice that his attorney gave him."); Cooper v. Mann, 273 Ala. 620, 622, 143 So. 2d 637, 638-39 (1962)("It is generally held, in absence of statute, that communications between attorney and client are privi......