Jones v. Wright

• Decision Date: 01 February 1917
• Docket Number: 8121.
• Parties: JONES ET AL. v. WRIGHT ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

91 S.E. 265

19 Ga.App. 242

JONES ET AL. v. WRIGHT ET AL.

No. 8121.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

February 1, 1917

Syllabus by the Court.

In an action against an attorney at law to recover the amount of a claim, alleged to have been lost because of his negligence or misconduct, it is necessary to allege not only that the claim was a valid one, but that the debtor was solvent. In such case the attorney is liable only for the actual injury his client has received, and not for the mere nominal amount involved in the litigation.

The petition against an attorney for the recovery of actual and punitive damages for negligent advice and conduct in the management of a case, alleged to have resulted in the loss of the plaintiff's claim, was properly stricken on demurrer in the absence of an allegation that the claim was a valid one, and that the debtor was solvent.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; W. J. Nunnally, Judge.

Action by Mrs. M. C. Jones and others against Seaborn Wright and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.

J. P Jones, of Rome, and Jones & Chambers, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

J. E Dean and G. E. Maddox, both of Rome, and Little, Powell, Smith & Goldstein, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

GEORGE J.

Mrs. Jones and her two children brought suit against Seaborn and Barry Wright. The petition alleged that the plaintiffs were legatees under the will of J. P. Jones, deceased, and that one T. R. Jones, of Bartow county, was the executor of said will, and that, as such legatees, they had a cause of action against the executor for failure to execute the provisions of the will; that the defendants, attorneys at law, were employed by the petitioners to represent them in the prosecution of their claim against the executor, and accepted the employment and undertook to perform the legal services necessary in their behalf. The petition is voluminous. Counsel for the plaintiffs have, however, in the main, properly construed the petition, and, according to the construction placed upon the petition by counsel themselves, all of the damage claimed against the defendants arose by reason of the following:

"First, erroneous legal advice rendered by said attorneys negligently during their employment, and in the conduct of litigation, as more particularly described in said original and amended petition; second, the negligent handling, management, and conduct of said litigation entrusted to them by the plaintiffs; third, the violation by said attorneys of express, direct, and material instructions given to them by the plaintiffs during their employment, and with reference to the institution, conduct, and management of said litigation; fourth, the fraudulent conduct of said attorneys in continuing to advise plaintiffs erroneously, and in permitting plaintiffs to act on judgments and decrees negligently entered and taken by said defendants, and in thereby permitting said plaintiffs to become bound by said judgments or decrees, and to lose all rights to move to set aside said judgments or decrees, notwithstanding and after said defendant attorneys had knowledge of and knew of the legal effect of such previously entered decrees so negligently taken by them; fifth, fraudulently concealing from their clients, the plaintiffs, the afore-mentioned violation of and disobedience to instructions given by said plaintiffs with reference to and during the conduct of said litigation."

To the petition as...