Legal Opinion
Howell v. Howell
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided September 16, 1939No. 12971PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Grice, Justice.
The petition does not allege that Messrs. Crawford and Barnett were not attorneys at law employed to represent the complainants in the caveat to the return of the appraisers in the court of ordinary. The presumption is that the attorneys were duly authorized to represent in that matter the persons for whom they appeared. Code, § 9-604; Bigham v. Kistler, 114 Ga. 453 (40 S. E. 303), and cit.; Edwards v. Wall, 153 Ga. 776, 780 (113 S. E. 190), and cit. The allegation that “said attorneys acted under a misapprehension and without proper authority from these plaintiffs to appear…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Edwards v. WallSupreme Court of Georgia · 1922
- Bigham v. KistlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1901
- Davis v. First National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1913
- Stone Mountain Confederate Monumental Ass'n v. SmithSupreme Court of Georgia · 1930
- Elliott v. ElliottSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Grice v. GriceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- In the Interest of D. R. W.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
- Petty v. Complete Auto Transit, Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1959
- Hatcher v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Peoples v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.