Title: Thompson v. Erving's Hatcheries, Inc.

State: mississippi

Issuer: Mississippi Supreme Court

Document:

186 So. 2d 756 (1966) Eugene THOMPSON v. ERVING's HATCHERIES, INC. No. 43906. Supreme Court of Mississippi. May 23, 1966. *757 Gore & Gore, Marks, Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, Jackson, for appellant. Lomax B. Lamb, Jr., Marks, for appellee. JONES, Justice. Appellant, a practicing attorney, was sued by appellee in the Circuit Court of Quitman County. Appellee sought damages, alleging that the negligence of appellant permitted the statute of limitations to run against a suit on open account for $2500 given by William Johnson Garrott. On trial, the lower court directed the jury peremptorily to find for appellee for the amount sued for ($2500), plus interest and other items. From this judgment, the case comes here. We affirm as to liability, but reverse and remand as to the amount of damages. This case is a sequel to Erving's Hatcheries, Inc. v. Garrott, 250 Miss. 701, 168 So. 2d 52 (1964). The facts on which the liability of appellant is based are recited in that case, and we deem it unnecessary to repeat them. Appellant's negligence and legal liability for any damages shown to have been proximately caused thereby are clear. On the degree of negligence required to be proven in order to recover against an attorney, we are cited only two Mississippi cases: Fitch v. Scott, 4 Miss. (3 How.) 314 (1839), in which our Court relied upon prior English decisions, and held: Grayson v. Wilkinson, 13 Miss. (5 S. & M.) 268 (1845), recognizes the "gross" negligence rule. However, in Annotation, 45 A.L.R.2d section 3, pp. 5, 11-12 (1956), it is stated: In 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law section 168 at 146 (1963), it is stated: Dean John W. Wade of the Vanderbilt University School of Law, writing in 12 Vanderbilt Law Review 755 (1958-1959), on "The Attorney's Liability for Negligence" by his great number of citations and able analyses thereof, manifests an exhaustive research on this subject. Relative to the degree of negligence required to render an attorney liable, he states: If, as a result of negligence or inattention to duty, or negligent delay on the part of the attorney in filing suit, a claim for collection becomes barred by the statute of limitation, he may be held liable. 7 Am.Jur.2d § 176 at 150-51 (1963); 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 144 at p. 981 (1937); and, Annot. 45 A.L.R.2d § 6 at 22 (1956). The lower court was justified in peremptorily directing the jury that appellant was negligent, but this is not all that is required to be shown to entitle appellee to a judgment. In 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 157 at p. 1000 (1937), it is stated: It is also stated in 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law section 188 at 156 (1963): In 7 Am.Jur.2d Attorneys at Law section 190 at 158 (1963), it is further stated: In Annotation, 45 A.L.R.2d section 5 at 19 (1956), it is stated: Two things other than employment are to be shown: (1) negligence, and (2) a loss proximately resulting therefrom. Fitch v. Scott, supra. *760 This Court held in Hoover v. Shackleford, 23 Miss. (1 Cush.) 520 (1852), where a verdict for defendant was returned: In the instant case, the matter of damages should have been submitted to the jury for determination of the actual loss proximately sustained as a result of appellant's negligence. There was evidence indicating insolvency of Mr. Garrott, negotiations and offers of settlement by each party, and there was introduced by plaintiff (although not pled as a defense) proof that Mr. Garrott denied the claim on the allegation that the articles purchased were of inferior quality. Under the whole record, it was for the jury to fix the amount of actual loss sustained by appellee as a proximate result of appellant's negligence, and we are reversing the case as to this feature so the jury may determine the collectibility and value of the judgment, if it had been obtained. Affirmed as to liability and reversed and remanded as to question of damages. Affirmed as to liability; reversed and remanded as to question of damages. ETHRIDGE, C.J., and RODGERS, SMITH and ROBERTSON, JJ., concur.