Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

70 Ga. 381

Price v. White

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided April 10, 1883

Supreme Court of Georgia · decided 1883-04-10

Attorney and Client. Judgments. Debtor and Creditor. Before Judge Fain. Bartow county. At Chambers. October 24,1882. Price filed his bill against White as plaintiff in fi. fa., Johnson as his attorney, and Franklin, the sheriff, for the purpose of enjoining a fi. fa. in favor of White, usee, against Hood, Johnson, complainant and others, from proceeding to subject the property of complainant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1883-04-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1944

4 state decisions

201883189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

Jackson, Chief Justice.

¶1This bill was filed to stop the levy of a fi. fa. in favor of White vs. the plaintiff in error, Abda J ohnson and others, on the ground that Johnson was a co-surety with the plaintiff in error, and collected enough money to pay off the fi. fa. from said plaintiff, on other claims put in his hands, and failed to pay it off. The bill was dismissed for want of equity.

¶2We are unable to see any error in it. Conceding that *383the allegation is sufficient to charge Johnson as attorney for White on White’s claim, it was for the plaintiff in error that he collected it on other claims of the plaintiff in error, and White had nothing to do with his breach of trust, being a stranger to the transaction. The case is covered by that of Pease vs. Dibble & Bunce, 57 Ga., 446. White had no knowledge at all of any such arrangement between Johnson, who was attorney for plaintiff in error to collect 'and apply those claims, and the plaintiff in error. White was no party to the contract. It is not alleged that Johnson acted as his agent or by his authority. -He has a right to collect his debt out of any and all of the defendants, and to leave them to settle equities inter sese between themselves after paying him. There was no error in dismissing the bill.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/70/ga/381 · .json · Public domain