Smith v. International Lawyers

• Decision Date: 02 March 1926
• Docket Number: 16909.
• Citation: 132 S.E. 245,35 Ga.App. 158
• Parties: SMITH et al. v. INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

132 S.E. 245

35 Ga.App. 158

SMITH et al. v. INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS.

No. 16909.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

March 2, 1926

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Petition alleging that collection agency procured clients to forward claims to attorneys for collection, that latter refused to pay over money collected, that agency reimbursed clients and attorneys were indebted to it, held not to show relation of attorney and client, nor set out facts sustaining petition for rule under Civ. Code 1910, § 4954.

Error from Superior Court, Berrien County; Jon P. Knight, Judge.

Suit by International Lawyers against W. R. Smith and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error. Reversed.

Jeff S. Story and W. R. Smith, both of Nashville, and E. D. Rivers, of Lakeland, for plaintiffs in error.

William Story, of Nashville, for defendants in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

LUKE, J.

A petition which substantially alleges that a collecting agency procured various clients to forward their claims to a firm of attorneys at law for collection, that the said firm collected the claims and failed and refused to pay over the money collected, that the said agency reimbursed the said clients for the said money, and that the defendants were indebted to the said agency for the money so expended by it, does not show that the relation of attorney and client existed between the said agency and the defendants in regard to said claims, and therefore does not set out such a state of facts as will sustain petition for a rule under section 4954, Civil Code 1910, brought by the said agency directly against the said attorneys. The court erred in overruling the general demurrer of each of the two defendants. Haygood v. Haden, 119 Ga. 463, 46 S.E. 625; Haden v. Lovett, 133 Ga. 388, 65 S.E. 853, 18 Ann.Cas. 114; Knight v. Rogers, 22 Ga.App. 308, 95 S.E. 997.

(a) The court having erred in overruling the general demurrers, the trial of the case thereafter was nugatory

Judgment reversed.

BROYLES, C.J., and BLOODWORTH, J., concur.