Legal Opinion

Lancaster v. Brandt

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided March 1, 1941No. 28800PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFelton, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) "Where attorneys retain in their hands the money of their clients after it 'has been demanded, they are liable to rule (and otherwise) as sheriffs are, and incur the same penalties and consequences.” Code, § 9-617. The provision for a rule against an attorney at law is -penal in nature, and must be strictly construed. Haygood v. Haden, 119 Ga. 463 (46 S. E. 625); Clark v. Hilliard, 19 Ga. App. 514 (3) (91 S. E. 926) ; Commons v. Ross, 44 Ga. App. 182 (160 S. E. 679). Code § 9-617, strictly construed, refers to money -the title to which is in the client. In…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Haygood v. HadenSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
  2. Clark v. HilliardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
  3. Whiddon v. Southern Auto Finance Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  4. Commins v. RossCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1931

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Blanch v. RobersonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
  2. Aiken v. RichardsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954

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

Powered by the Exa API