Legal Opinion

Lewis v. Van Valkenburg

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided May 19, 1941No. 13691Published

1Opinion of the Court

Bell, Justice.

The attorney was employed on basis of a contingent fee of twenty per cent, of any sum recovered. If the settlement which he negotiated had been accepted by his client, what*278ever sum she received thereunder might perhaps have been considered as a sum recovered, within the meaning of the contract of employment. Middleton v. Westmoreland, 164 Ga. 324 (138 S. E. 852); Camp v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 42 Ga. App. 653 (2) (157 S. E. 209); Thomas v. Travelers Insurance Co., 53 Ga. App. 404 (185 S. E. 922). The client, however, as the judge was authorized to find, did not…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Byrd v. ClarkSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
  2. Middleton v. WestmorelandSupreme Court of Georgia · 1927
  3. Camp v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
  4. Stephens v. FulfordSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
  5. Spence v. Coney, Lovejoy & Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1895

2 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