Gould v. Palmer
| Decision Date | 08 July 1895 |
| Citation | 22 S.E. 583,96 Ga. 798 |
| Parties | GOULD. v. PALMER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Limitations—Running of Statute—Neglect or Duty by Attorney.
It is not the special damage or injury resulting from the unskillfulness of an attorney at law in the representation of his client's interests, but the breach of the duty imposed by the contract of employment, which gives a right of action for damages sustained. The statute of limitations in such a case runs, therefore, from the date of the breach of duty, and not from the time when the extent of the resulting injury is ascertained. The action in the present case not having been brought within four years from the date of the breach of duty, and nothing being alleged which in the meantime suspended its operation, the court properly dismissed the plaintiff's declaration. Crawford v. Gaulden, 33 Ga. 173: Lilly v. Boyd, 72 Ga. 83; Weeks, Attys. § 320; 1 Wood, Lim. 122.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Atlanta; Howard Van Epps, Judge.
Action by E. P. Gould against Palmer & Read as a firm and Charles A: Read as an individual. Dismissed, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
The following is the official report:
On demurrer the declaration was dismissed on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations, and that it set forth no cause of action. It alleges the following: For some months prior to June 0, 1894, Palmer & Read had been plaintiff's attorneys in various matters. Palmer's liability herein arises solely from his partnership with Read, as he neither had knowledge nor actively participated in any of the acts and omissions for which this suit is brought; but all such acts and omissions were by Read. In April and May, 1890, plaintiff had in his office building in Atlanta a tenant by the name of Mrs. S. C. Hall, who ran a studio; and, having some difficulty about rent, he employed defendants as attorneys at law to represent his side of the rent question against her. This employment involved the use of such means on their part as were proper to collect the rent. Pending this dispute, Mrs. Hall left the building, and between that time and the 5th of June, 1890, a correspondence en sued between plaintiff and Mrs. Hall, and John A. Wimpy, the attorney for her and her husband, in which she set up a claim for damages against plaintiff. During this correspondence defendants were employed as plaintiff's attorneys to shape said correspondence, and to advise, protect, and generally represent plaintiff in said claim, whether the same was ever brought to suit or not; and in consideration of his undertaking to pay them a reasonable fee they undertook to represent him, assuming to bring to the discharge of these duties reasonable skill, care, and diligence. On June 5, 1890, Mrs. Hall's claim culminated in a suit against plaintiff in the city court of Atlanta for $5,000 damages. Defendants' previous employment as his attorneys would have embraced the matter of defending this suit without further agreement, but on June 6, 1890, an article appeared in the Atlanta Constitution newspaper, giving some prominence to the filing of the suit, and plaintiff on the same day called on defendants as his attorneys (they always acting through Read), and asked their advice about the matter, and as to whether, in the proper conduct of the defense, a reply should be written to the newspaper article, to prevent the public from becoming prejudiced against his side of the case. Said suit was unfounded in law, and was demurrable; and, whether the motives which inspired the suit were good or bad, the material facts therein alleged could have been successfully disproved by him, and the proper place to defend the case was in the courthouse. It was the duty of defendants to confine their attention to the proper defense thereof upon the law and facts only. Plaintiff is not a lawyer, is inexperienced in law, especially in the question of how to manage such a case as Mrs. Hall's; and he relied absolutely and implicitly on defendants to guide him safely through it On said day he asked their advice as to whether it was necessary to write a reply to the newspaper article. He showed them a rough draft of a card written by himself, which, In substance, was a mere denial of the allegations in Mrs. Hall's petition, and a request to the public to defer judgment until the trial in court Defendants were acquainted with all the facts, having been in the case as attorneys from the beginning of the rent trouble. Plaintiff asked their advice as to whether it was proper to publish any card at all, and, If so, stating that he desired to keep out of any further trouble, and to keep clear of the law of libel, of which he was ignorant; and he placed the matter entirely in defendants' hands as attorneys, as to whether that or any card should go into the papers. They examined his card (which was exceedingly temperate, and contained nothing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Everhart v. Rich's, Inc.
...above questions, the Court of Appeals cites the following: 'Crawford v. Gaulden, 33 Ga. 173(8); Lilly v. Boyd, 72 Ga. 83; Gould v. Palmer & Read, 96 Ga. 798 (22 SE 583); Schofield v. Woolley, 98 Ga. 548 (25 SE 769); McClaren v. Williams, 132 Ga. 352(4) (64 SE 65); Davis v. Boyett, 120 Ga. 6......
-
Hamilton v. Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, 65663
...3-706). Jankowski v. Taylor, Bishop & Lee, 246 Ga. 804, 273 S.E.2d 16, affg. 154 Ga.App. 752, 269 S.E.2d 871 (1980); Gould v. Palmer & Read, 96 Ga. 798, 22 S.E. 583 (1895); Lilly v. Boyd, 72 Ga. 83 (1883); Crawford v. Gaulden, 33 Ga. 173 (1862); Akins v. Jones, 164 Ga.App. 705, 297 S.E.2d 3......
-
Barnes v. Turner, A03A2331.
...supplied.)) However, in Jankowski, supra at 806(1), 273 S.E.2d 16, the Supreme Court concluded the holdings in Gould v. Palmer, 96 Ga. 798, 22 S.E. 583 [ (1898) ], Lilly v. Boyd, 72 Ga. 83 [(1883)], and Crawford v. Gaulden, 33 Ga. 173 [ (1862) ], that "a right of action (for legal malpracti......
-
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue v. American Envirecycle, Inc.
...(Emphasis supplied.)) However, in Jankowski, supra at 806(1), 273 S.E.2d 16, the Supreme Court concluded the holdings in Gould v. Palmer & Read, 96 Ga. 798, 22 S.E. 583, Lilly v. Boyd, 72 Ga. 83, and Crawford v. Gaulden, 33 Ga. 173, that "a right of action [for legal malpractice] arises imm......