Guy v. Avery County Bank
| Decision Date | 21 March 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 132.,132. |
| Citation | 173 S.E. 600,206 N.C. 322 |
| Parties | GUY . v. AVERY COUNTY BANK et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, McDowell County; Sehenck, Judge.
Suit by W. W. Guy against Avery County Bank and E. C. Guy, who filed a counterclaim.
From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant B. C. Guy appeals.
Affirmed.
The cause was referred by consent; the referee made his report; exceptions were tiled and overruled; the report was confirmed; and E. O. Guy excepted to the judgment of the superior court and appealed.
Dillard S. Gardner and W. T. Morgan, both of Marion, for appellant.
J. Will Pless, Jr., and Winborne & Proctor, all of Marion, for appellees.
The only question to be considered is presented by an exception to the exclusion of evidence. Rule 271/2--Practice in the Supreme Court. The defendant offered the deposition of J. P. Kitchin for the purpose of showing, as a basis of E. C. Guy's alleged counterclaim, that the plaintiff had admitted his indebtedness to E. C. Guy and his purpose to convey certain lots to him as security. The plaintiff objected for the reason that between the witness and the plaintiff there existed the relation of attorney and client and that the answer would involve the disclosure of a confidential communication. The referee excluded the evidence and the appellant's exception was overruled by Judge Schenck.
The witness was a practicing attorney. He testified that he had not been retained by the plaintiff with respect to the conveyance of the lots, but that he had represented the plaintiff in practically all his real estate transactions in Buncombe county for a number of years as the plaintiff called on him from time to time, and that he and the plaintiff occupied the "confidential relationship of attorney and client"; that all the information he had received came to him by reason of this relation; that when they "discussed these things the plaintiff was talking to him as his attorney"; that he had not been released from the privilege of nondisclosure; and that the plaintiff would not have made the disclosure except for these facts.
When the relation of attorney and client exists, all communications made by the latter to his attorney on the faith of such relation are privileged and the attorney will not be permitted to disclose them. Hughes v. Boone, 102 N. C. 137, 9 S. E. 286; Carey v. Carey, 108 N. C. 267, 12 S. E. 1038. The attorney's disqualification with respect to communications between himself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Miller
...523, 531, 284 S.E.2d 289, 294 (1981); State v. Van Landingham, 283 N.C. 589, 601, 197 S.E.2d 539, 547 (1973); Guy v. Avery Cty. Bank, 206 N.C. 322, 322, 173 S.E. 600, 601 (1934); Hughes v. Boone, 102 N.C. 137, 159, 9 S.E. 286, 292 There are exceptions to this general rule of application to ......
-
Buford v. Mochy
... ... however, these obstacles might have appeared formidable ... Guy v. Avery County Bank, 206 N.C. 322, 173 S.E ... The ... judgment seems to be in accord ... ...
-
Dobias v. White, 171
...by his client are privileged, and the attorney cannot be compelled to testify to them unless his client consents. Guy v. Avery County Bank, 206 N.C. 322, 173 S.E. 600; McNeill v. Thomas, 203 N.C. 219, 165 S.E. 712; Hughes v. Boone, 102 N.C. 137, 159, 9 S.E. 286; Jones v. Nantahala Marble & ......
-
Kemp's Will, In re
...the common-law rule making confidential communications between attorney and client privileged communications. Guy v. Avery County Bank, 206 N.C. 322, 173 S.E. 600; McNeill v. Thomas, 203 N.C. 219, 165 S.E. 712; Jones v. Nantahala Marble & Talc Co., 137 N.C. 237, 49 S.E. 94; Carey v. Carey, ......