Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Haldane
Supreme Court of Georgia
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam.
Assuming that tlie plaintiff, as an attorney at law, had such interest in the subject-matter of the litigation as to authorize him to institute the action, the evidence (consisting of the pleadings and an agreed statement) was insufficient to show that the defendant corporation and its agent were engaged in the practice of law. Eor this reason the court erred in granting an injunction.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur except Russell, O. J., and Bell, J., who cKssent, and Gilbert, J., absent.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Marks v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 2005
- Georgia Bar Ass'n v. Lawyers Title InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1966
- Bar Ass'n of Dallas v. Hexter Title & Abstract Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1943
- Connor v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
- Morgan v. Fidelity Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.