Legal Opinion

Kendrick v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided October 25, 1928No. 6 Div. 214PublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSayre, J.

We consider only subdivision (d) of the Act of September 7, 1927 (Acts 1927, pp. 669, 670), amending section 6248 of the Code of 1923. That subdivision, with so much of the context as is necessary to its understanding, reads as follows: '

“6248. Who may Practice as Attorneys.— Only such persons as are regularly licensed have authority to practice law. Eor the purposes of this section of the Code, the practice of law is defined as follows: Whoever, * * * (d) As a vocation, enforces, secures, settles, adjusts or compromises defaulted, controverted or disputed accounts, claims or demands between…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Lindsay v. United States Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
  2. Ex parte CowertSupreme Court of Alabama · 1890
  3. Dolese v. PierceIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
  4. State ex rel. Troy v. SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1914
  5. In re DorseySupreme Court of Alabama · 1838

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. State Ex Inf. McKittrick v. C. S. Dudley & Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1937
  2. Berk v. State Ex Rel. ThompsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1932
  3. John E. Ballenger Const. Co. v. State Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of Alabama · 1937
  4. State Ex Rel. Seawell v. Carolina Motor Club, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  5. In Re FiteSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API