Kendrick v. State

Decided June 21, 1928

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2012

1 state decisions

Relies on Kendrick v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1928-06-21

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Reversed and rendered, on authority of Kendrick v. State,218 Ala. 277, 120 So. 142. *7

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; H. P. Heflin, Judge. William J. Kendrick was convicted of practicing law without a license, and he appeals. Affirmed. Judgment reversed and rendered on writ of error by Supreme Court in Kendrick v. State, 218 Ala. 277 , 120 So. 142 . Certiorari denied, 218 Ala. 279 , 120 So. 144 . The complaint charges that defendant, being engaged in the business of conducting a commercial collection agency, did secure from a named firm a disputed or controverted claim or demand against a named person, and did settle same by collecting from the debtor a stated amount and received from the creditor a stated sum, out of the money so collected, as compensation for his services; defendant not being in privity with or in the relation of employer and employee to either party, and not being regularly licensed to practice law in the state of Alabama. The act of 1927, under which the prosecution is had (Gen. Acts 1927, p. 669, amending Code 1923, § 6248) provides that only such persons as are regularly licensed have authority to practice law, and, for the purposes of the act, defines the practice of law. That part of the definition here pertinent is as follows: "Whoever * * * (d) as a vocation, enforces, secures, settles, adjusts or compromises defaulted, controverted or disputed accounts, claims or demands between persons with neither of whom he is in privity or in the relation of employer and employee in the ordinary sense; is practicing law." It is provided that — "Any person, firm or corporation who is not a regularly licensed attorney who does an act defined in this section to be an act of practicing law, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction must be punished as provided by law." Defendant's demurrer to the complaint takes the point that said act is void, in that it is violative of sections 1, 6, 22, 36, 43, and 45 of the Constitution of Alabama and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Source: CourtListener