Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

152 Ga. 648

Pickens Co. v. Thomas

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 16, 1922

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1922-02-16

<p>1. The general manager of a mercantile and farming corporation is without authority, by virtue of his office alone, to employ counsel to represent employees thereof who are charged with larceny of property alleged to be that of third persons, but claimed by such corporation as its own, in the absence of express authority from the corporation, or ratification by the corporation of his act in so employing counsel, or by a previous course of dealing known to the corporation, from which such authority might be inferred; and this is true although prior to the indictments against these employees a third person who claimed one of the hogs alleged to be stolen had prosecuted a possessory warrant for the same against the corporation, and although the property alleged to be stolen by the employees was claimed by the corporation and found upon its premises where the employees were working.</p> <p>2. Where an attorney at law is employed by a corporation as its general counsel for one year, the position having no fixed salary attached, but the attorney is to be paid a separate fee for every specific legal service rendered the corporation, and there is no agreement between the attorney and the corporation as to any retaining fee, such attorney is not entitled, as a matter of right, at the end of his year’s employment, to a retaining fee in addition to the fees paid him for specific services rendered his client during the period of his employment.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1922-02-16

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 1984

1 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

801922193019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Beck, P. J., and Atkinson, J.,

¶1who dissent on the ground that the defense of the employee is so related to the property rights and protection of the property of the corporation that it would be authorized to employ an attorney for defending the employee under the circumstances stated; and if the corporation had such authority, the general manager also had it.

/152/ga/648 · .json · Public domain