Legal Opinion

Clark v. Harrison

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 19, 1936No. 10883PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

1. There are two essential elements of a champertous agreement: first, there must be an undertaking’ by one person to defray the expense of the whole or a part of another’s suit; second, the agreement or promise on the part of the latter to divide with the former the proceeds of the litigation in the event it proves successful. Meeks v. Dewberry, 57 Ga. 263; Anderson v. Anderson, 12 Ga. App. 706 (2) (78 S. E. 271); Black’s Law Dictionary (3d ed.), 306.

(а) The present suit brought by the insurance commissioner did not seek a recovery of anything of value, but its purpose was merely to restrain…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Collins v. RussellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1899
  2. City Council v. SweeneySupreme Court of Georgia · 1871
  3. Benevolent Burial Ass'n v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1935
  4. Tucker v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1919
  5. Brooke v. Lowry National BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1914

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Walker v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1943
  2. Ogletree v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1942
  3. Rossville Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Chase Manhattan BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1967
  4. Parker v. West View Cemetery AssociationSupreme Court of Georgia · 1943
  5. Morris v. City Council of AugustaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948

4 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