Aiken v. Richardson

1. A petition for a money rule by a client against an attorney at law is amendable.

2. The court did not err in overruling the demurrers to the original petition for the rule, as finally amended by the third and last amendment.

DECIDED NOVEMBER 23, 1949. REHEARING DENIED DECEMBER 12, 1949.

William Richardson, as a client, brought a money rule in the Fulton Superior Court against his attorney G. Seals Aiken. The motion for a rule, quoted in toto, was as follows: "1. That the said G. Seals Aiken is an attorney at law, practicing in this court, and resides in said State and county. 2. That said…