Clarke v. Alexander & Wright
Supreme Court of Georgia
Contracts. Actions. Attorney and Client. Witness. Before Judge Harris. Coweta Superior Court. March Term, 1883. To the report contained in the decision it is only necessary to add that the following were among the grounds of the motion for new trial: (1.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.
Read the full summary
Contracts. Actions. Attorney and Client. Witness. Before Judge Harris. Coweta Superior Court. March Term, 1883. To the report contained in the decision it is only necessary to add that the following were among the grounds of the motion for new trial: (1.) Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. (2.) Because the court rejected a letter written by R. T. Eouche, one of the firm of Printup & Fouche, to Clarke, which was offered to show that Fouche considered that his firm should be paid out of the fee due to Mr Hill. (3.) Because the court admitted in evidence a certified copy of…
1Opinion of the Court
TIall, Justice.
Alexander & Wright brought suit against Clarke, upon an alleged undertaking of the latter to indemnify and save them harmless against a claim of Printup & Fouche to compensation due them as attorneys at law, in bringing into court a fund then in the hands of the said Alexander & Wright, likewise attorneys at law engaged in the same litigation.
It seems that Benjamin H. Hill, Esq., had been employed under a special contract, by one N. N. Smith, to collect for him two notes, amounting to a considerable sum, made by W. R. Smith, and by the terms thereof was to retain ten per cent…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Knudsen v. Duffee-Freeman, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
- Thompson v. MannWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1909
- Rogers v. ManningSupreme Court of Georgia · 1946
- Yaple v. StillAppellate Court of Illinois · 1927
- Hornsby v. JensenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.