Peavy v. Turner

• Decision Date: 24 April 1899
• Parties: PEAVY v. TURNER.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

33 S.E. 409

107 Ga. 401

PEAVY v. TURNER.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 24, 1899

Syllabus by the Court.

That a lien is by statute created in favor of attorneys at law, and that an attorney is, in a given instance, proceeding thereunder to foreclose his lien for fees, does not make the debt thus sought to be collected a statutory liability. When the claim for such fees is simply an open account, the remedy of enforcing the lien for its payment becomes barred in four years after the right of action accrues.

Error from superior court, Meriwether county; S.W. Harris, Judge.

Action by George L. Peavy against G. B. Turner, executor of Mary Turner. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

John W Park and Park & Gerdine, for defendant in error.

LEWIS J.

George L. Peavy brought suit in Meriwether superior court against Green B. Turner, as executor of Mary Turner, deceased, for amount of fee for services due by the deceased to the plaintiff, as attorney at law, in procuring for her a year's support, which was set aside to her in specific property then in the hands of her administrator. He claimed a lien for attorney's fees on this property. It does not appear that there was any written contract for fees, but that a debt was due upon open account, which, according to the allegations of the petition, had been due more than four years prior to the death of the deceased. A demurrer to the action was sustained on the ground that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. It is contended by counsel for plaintiff in error that inasmuch as a lien was by law created in his favor upon the particular property mentioned, in the hands of the administrator, the right he was asking to have enforced accrued to him under statute, and that, under section 3766 of the Civil Code, all suits for the enforcement of such rights, or those accruing by operation of law, could be brought within 20 years after the right of action accrued. This provision of law is where the statute creates a liability that is directly the ground of the action, and does not apply to a case where the liability is created by contract between the parties. In this case the liability was created by the contract between client and attorney, and the rendition of the services by the attorney in pursuance of his employment. The creation of the lien by law in favor of the attorney only provided for him an additional remedy for the...