Kaiser v. Hancock

• Decision Date: 16 December 1898
• Citation: 32 S.E. 123,106 Ga. 217
• Parties: KAISER et al. v. HANCOCK.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

32 S.E. 123

(106 Ga. 217)

KAISER et al.

v.HANCOCK.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Dec. 16, 1898.

acthokitt of attorney—settlement of claim —Burden of Proof—Compromise. Without special authority, an attorney cannot accept anything in discharge of his client's claim but the full amount thereof in cash. And where a plaintiff introduces evidence which makes out a prima facie case in his favor for the full amount for which he sues, proof by the defendant, in support of a plea filed by him that he has paid to the attorney of record for the plaintiff a sum less than the amount sued for, as a full settlement of the piaintiff's demand against him, raises no presumption that the attorney was authorized by the plaintiff to make such a settlement. Consequently, under such circumstances, the burden is upon the defendant to show the authority of the plaintiff's attorney to make the settlement which he sets up as a satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Montgomery county; C. C. Smith, Judge.

Action by A. Kaiser & Bro. against W. h. Hancock. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed.

J. B. Geiger, for plaintiffs in error.

W. L.Clarke, for defendant in error.

PISH, J. In 1891, Kaiser & Bro., through their attorney, J. T. Neeson, brought suit in Montgomery superior court against W. H. Hancock on an open account for $449.22. The case was tried at the April term, 1898, when the defendant filed an amended plea, in which he set up that "on the 10th day of March, 1894, he paid to J. T. Neeson, the attorney of record for the plaintiff, * * * the sum of $350 as a full settlement of the account, the subject-matter of the suit." On the trial both members of the firm of Kaiser & Bro. and one of the firm's employes testified that the goods represented by the account were sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant, and that the account was correct and true, and one of these witnesses testified that the defendant had admitted the account sued on to be correct; so that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the plaintiffs would have been entitled to recover the full amount of their claim. In support of his plea, the defendant testified that he had paid the account sued on to Neeson, the attorney at law who had the claim for collection, and took his receipt at the time that he made the payment. The defendant produced the following receipt, which he testified Neeson signed and delivered to him when the payment was made: "Received of W. H. Hancock the sum of $350.00 as a settlement of the claim of A. Kaiser & Bro. vs. W. H. Hancock. This 10th day of March, 1894. [Signed] J. T. Neeson, Attorney for A. Kaiser & Bro." This receipt was then introduced in evidence. Upon cross-examination the defendant testified that he did not remember the exact amount that he paid Neeson, but it lacked some $15.00, possibly more, of being the amount stated in this receipt, and was paid as a full settlement, and the...