Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Aitorneys to be Admitted.

Dufty, Richard Arthur, Nottingham
D'Aeth, George William Henry, jun., 2, Mitre
Court; and 50, Southampton Row.
Day, Henry, Hemel Hempstead
Eagleton, John William, Arthur Street, Gray's
Inn Road; Newark-upon-Trent ; and
Belton

Eltoft, Joseph, Manchester

Ford, Brutton John, 52, Great Marlborough Street, Exeter; and South Street, Berkley Square

Forbes, John, 26, Queen's Row, Bayswater; and Sunninghill

Fellowes, John Butler, 14, Victoria Road, Pim

lico; Plymouth; and Lombard Street Fuller, Frederick, 23, Southampton Row; Lloyd Square; and Great Ormond Street Fullager, Walter Horne, Lewes Fisher, Edward Freeland, 9, Sussex Gardens, Hyde Park

[ocr errors]

Faithfull, Frederick Dundas, 60, Lincoln's Inn Fields; and Wath-upon-Dearne Gibbon, Henry, 32, Great James Street, Bedford Row

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Hare, Richard, 41, Manchester Street, King's Cross; Wyke Regis; Trelleck Terrace, Pimlico

Hale, James, 19, Charlotte Street, Islington;

Charlotte Terrace; Richmond Road

Harvey, Joseph, 67, Upper Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square; and Leicester Hollingshead, Henry Brock, Billinge Scarr, near Blackburn

Hodgson, Richard Huddleston, Bradford Henderson, James, 8, Queen's Row, Pentonville; Blackburn; and Enfield

Hearn, Thomas Bayley, Ryde, Isle of Wight.

Holt, Joseph Peirson, 5, Soley Terrace, Pen-
tonville; and Northallerton
Hallward, Charles Berners, 151, Albany St.,
Regent's Park; and Swepstone Rectory,
Leicestershire .

[ocr errors]

Hamer, Thomas Greensit, 2, New Millman
Street; Wakefield; and Upper Calthorpe
Street

Holt, Jonathan, 25, Bennett Street, Stamford
Street; Malmesbury; Coventry; New-
gate Street; and High Holborn
Haigh, John, Huddersfield

Harvey, Thomas Morton, Egham; and 36,
Carey Street

Hamilton, Thomas William, 86, Great Tower Street

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

223

[blocks in formation]

224

Attorneys to be Admitted.-Analytical Digest of Cases: Courts of Equity.

Holland, William, 3, Upper Baker St., Pen

tonville

[ocr errors]

Haldane, Robert, 29, Old Bond Street; and
Old Burlington Street
Jule, George Montagu, 88, Piccadilly
Janeway, William, Portland Place, North
Clapham Road

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

.

A. W. Tooke, Bedford Row

[merged small][ocr errors]

John James Joseph Sudlow, Chancery Lane

Knapp, Richard, 4, Old Square, Lincoln's Inn;
11, Lower Charles Street, Northampton
Square; 36, Southampton Buildings; 11 Benjamin Holloway, New Woodstock
and 51, Devonshire St., Queen's Square. F. P. Chappell, Quality Court
Latch, George, 32, Golden Square; Newport,
Monmouthshire

Lanfear, William Burbidge, 5, Lamb's Con-
duit Street; and Aldersgate Street .
Lambert, Alfred, 13, Upper Stamford Street
Lewis, L. Winterbotham, Cheltenham.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Stephen Towgood, Newport, Monmouth

H. R. Hill, Throgmorton Street

John Iliffe, Bedford Row

L. Winterbotham, Tewkesbury

J. Thomas, Tewkesbury

J. B. Winterbotham, Cheltenham
John Mowrilyan, Sandwich

J. Raw, 5, Furnival's Inn

Geo. Fred. Prince Sutton, Basinghall Street

[This List will be continued in our next.]

ANALYTICAL DIGEST OF CASES,

REPORTED IN ALL THE COURTS.

Courts of Equity.

LAW OF ATTORNEYS AND COSTS.

BILL OF DISCOVERY.

Orders of 1845. The 125th Order of May, 1845, is not applicable to the case of a plaintiff at law, being also a defendant in equity, who files a bill for discovery in aid of his action, although the subject-matter is the same in the action and suit. Therefore, a defendant, when he has put in his answer to such a bill, may obtain an order of course for the payment of costs, and a writ of attachment may be issued_on_nonpayment. Dingwall v. Hemming, 33 L. O. 428.

BREACH OF TRUST.

1. Solicitor's liability.—A solicitor having advised his client (a person in an humble station of life) to commit a breach of trust by selling out stock, of which the client was a trustee, and having himself profited by the breach of trust, was ordered to be struck off the Roll, unless he showed good cause to the contrary; but having, in obedience to the decree in the cause, replaced the stock, and paid the costs of the suit, the court (taking into consideration his youth and other circumstances) abstained from further proceedings in the motion, upon his undertaking to pay to the said parties to the suit, their costs, charges, and expenses. Goodwin v. Gosnell, 2 Coll. 462.

See Striking off the Roll.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Disallowance of costs.-A solicitor employed in the sale of an estate, knew that the titledeeds were in the possession of an adverse 2. When several defendants are involved in party; he however proceeded to prepare and breach of trust, the court, in decreeing relief in obtained the execution of the conveyance and respect of it, decrees the costs of the suit against memorial. The sale went off, in consequence them all, on the principle of giving the plaintiff of the absence of the title-deeds. He was disthe greater security for the payment, and with- allowed the costs of the proceeding, and the out regard to the relative degrees of culpability deed being a cloud on the title, he was also

Analytical Digest of Cases: Courts of Equity.

ordered to deliver it without being paid the costs thereof. Potts v. Dutton, 8 Beav. 493. PARLIAMENTARY COSTS.

See Taxation, 8.

RESPONSIBILITY OF SOLICITOR.

A solicitor took an insufficient security for his client, and the nature of the transaction was such, as in the opinion of the court to create a case of combined agency and trust. He was held (under the circumstances) personally responsible for the deficiency, and for the costs of the suit. Craig v. Watson, 8 Beav. 427.

SECURITY FOR COSTS,

1. Misdescription.-Transfer of Title.-The plaintiff brought her bill for redemption, describing herself as A. B., the widow of the mortgagor, and claiming as his devisee and executrix ; but she obtained probate of the will as A. C., otherwise B., spinster: Held, that as the description of the plaintiff in the suit involved the question of her title under the will, the above variance did not entitle the plaintiff to have the bill taken off the file, or security given for costs. Griffith v. Ricketts, 5 Hare, 195.

Case cited in the judgment: Morgans v. Bridges,

1 B. &. A. 647.

2. Removal of next friend.-In a suit in which one of the plaintiffs, all of whom were out of the jurisdiction, appeared by her next friend, an order to substitute a new next friend for the then existing one, alleged to be a person of insufficient substance, and a menial servant of the solicitor who conducted the suit, and was also a defendant, or to give security for costs, was varied by allowing such next friend to continue, security for costs being given by consent.

Quare, whether a defendant can demand security for costs in a case where all the plaintiffs are beyond the jurisdiction of the court, but one of whom, not being an infant, appears by a next friend within the jurisdiction. Landor v. Parr, 34 L. O. 33.

SIGNED BILL.

1. Construction of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73.-Jurisdiction.-Order to deliver up papers.-An order of course may be obtained for taxing a solicitor's bill of costs, under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 37, if the same have been actually delivered, although it may not have been signed or enclosed in a letter signed by the solicitor.

The above statute does not affect the original jurisdiction of the court to order delivery of papers, &c., by a solicitor on payment of his taxed costs.

An order for a solicitor to deliver up all papers, &c., belonging to his client is restricted to such papers as relate to the business in respect of which the lien arose; and it will not be set aside as irregular, because it may literally include other papers, &c., belonging to the same client, upon which there may exist a lien for other business, Re Pender, 33 L. O. 43.

225

2. The provisions of the 37th clause of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, for the authentication by sig nature of a solicitor's bill of costs, are intended for the protection of the client only, and therefore where a bill has been delivered without such authentication, that circumstance is no objection to an application by the client for its taxation.

The decision in Exparte Gaitskell, in which it was held that applications for the taxation of bills, in the second class of cases provided for by the 37th section of the statute, do not require notice, confirmed. Pender, in re, 2 Phill. 69.

STRIKING OFF THE ROLL.

Breach of trust.-Fraud.-On a bill filed by parties interested under a will, against the sole acting trustee and executor, and against his solicitor, under whose advice the trust property had been improperly sold out by the trustee, and applied principally to the solicitor's use, praying that the stock might be replaced, the court, at the hearing, after directing certain inquiries, ordered that the solicitor should show cause why, having regard to his answer and the evidence in the cause, his name should not be struck off the roll of solicitors of the Court of Chancery. Goodwin v. Gosnell, 2 Coll. 457. Case cited in the judgment: Dungez v. Angove, R. L. 1793, A. f. 548.

TAXATION.

1. "Special circumstance."—Where a cestui que trust seeks to tax the solicitor's bill paid by his trustee, on the ground of overcharge, he must allege and prove specific items.

It is a "special circumstance," within the meaning of the 6 & 7 Vict, c. 73, where a solicitor produces his bill at the time appointed for the settlement of a transaction, and refuses to complete, except on payment thereof. Bennett, in re, 8 Beav. 467.

2. "Special circumstance."-A mortgagee's solicitor would not part with the deeds until payment of his bill of costs, which had been delivered to the mortgagor's solicitor a month previously. Held, that this was not a sufficient case of pressure to induce the court to order a taxation.

A mortgagor has not a right to have the bills of the mortgagee's solicitor taxed upon different principles from those which would be applied to the taxation of the same bill upon the petition of the mortgagee.

Payment of a solicitor's bill, delivered at the last moment of settling a mortgage, being insisted on, without any opportunity of examination being afforded, &c., a "special circumstance," within the meaning of the Solicitors' Act. Jones, in re, 8 Beav. 479.

[ocr errors]

3. Special circumstance."- Where payment of a bill of costs has been obtained by undue pressure, a taxation may be directed on proof of overcharge, without showing that such overcharges are so gross as to amount to fraud.

[ocr errors]

It is a "special circumstance within the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, where, on paying off a mort

226

Analytical Digest of Cases: Courts of Equity.

gage, a solicitor produces his bill and insists upon 4. B.'s note drawn for that purpose, on payment as a condition for immediate com- which they placed in the solicitor's hands. 4. B. pletion, though items are objected to, and a alone obtained an exparte order for taxation; taxation will be directed after payment, if there it was discharged for irregularity. Mobbs, exare apparent overcharges. parte, 8 Beav. 499.

A taxation, at the instance of a mortgagor, of the bill of the mortgagee's solicitor, must be as between the solicitor and his client, the mortgagee.

Upon an application to tax a paid bill, the solicitor will not be permitted to add to any ander-charges contained therein, but the taxation must be had on the bill as delivered and paid. Wells, in re, 8 Beav. 416.

4. When refused. The lapse of 12 calendar months after payment of a bill of costs pre

cludes taxation under the Solicitors' Act.

The rule applies where payment is made by trustees, &c., and the application for taxation is made, under the 38th section of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, by a party “liable to pay." Massey, in re, 8 Beav. 458.

5. When refused. - Jurisdiction. - Parties agreed to compromise a suit, and the trustee's costs were to be deducted out of a fund in his hands. By an order of the Vice-Chancellor of England the compromise was confirmed. It appeared to be the agreement between the parties, that the costs should be taxed in the case. An application to the Master of the Rolls for taxation under the statute was refused with costs.

Jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor, under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, to order the taxation of bills of costs. Howard, in re, 8 Beav. 424.

6. Where, upon an application for taxation under the Solicitors' Act, it appears probable, that upon grounds not determinable under that jurisdiction, payment ought not to be made without further investigation, this court may properly abstain from ordering payment, or from ordering the delivery up of deeds, till the question which cannot be determined under that jurisdiction, have been properly investigated and determined elsewhere. Dalby, in re, 8 Beav. 469.

10. Order of course discharged, on the ground of the case being mis-stated upon the petition for the order. A solicitor having delivered his bill, is bound by it, and the taxation must be on the bill; he is not entitled, as of course, to reduce his demand, or to reserve the power of adding to the charges. Carven, in re, 8 Beav. 436.

TRUSTEE.

the trust matters, is merely entitled to costs out 1. Solicitor.-A trustee acting as solicitor in of pocket. The rule is not inflexible, and compensation may, in special cases, be made him, lowance, but not by allowing him to make the under the authority of the court, by a fixed alusual professional charges. Bainbrigge v. Blair, 8 Beav. 588.

Cases cited in the judgment: New v. Jones, 9 Jarman Blyth, 338; Moore v. Frowd, 3 Myl & Cr. 45; Marshall v. Holloway, 2 Swan. 453. 2. Local act.-32nd Order of August, 1841. -Parish officers having received information that a person was a pauper lunatic, likely to do mischief, caused an order to be left with A. B., who lived at his house, and appeared to have the care of him, for his removal to the workhouse. A. B. soon afterwards, assisted by other persons, took him forcibly to the workhouse in a strait waistcoat. He remained in the workhouse about a week, at the expiration of which he was brought before a magistrate and discharged. He then brought an action for an assault and false imprisonment, and an action of trespass, against the parish officers, and in one of them recovered 4001. damages, which, upon a motion for a new trial, were reduced, by consent, to 2007., no new trial being granted. The other action was not tried. The trustees of the parish having, under a local act, authority to manage the parish accounts and to superintend the treatment of the poor, charged the damages and costs incurred in these actions against the poor-rates of the parish. The rates so charged were subsequently allowed in open vestry, and the charges paid out of them. Upon an information filed against the trustees, for the purpose of compelling them personally to refund the money so paid, as for a breach of trust, the court dismissed the information, being satisfied upon the evidence before it, without regard to the proceedings at law, that the parish officers had not participated in the forcible removal of the pauper, and had in other respects acted reasonably, though, perhaps, not strictly according to law, in the discharge of their duty; eonsequently, that they were entitled to be allowed 9. Irregular order.-A. B., who claimed the payment so made, either under the 26th some property, conveyed it to trustees, upon section of the local act, which provided that all trusts for carrying on the litigation and pay-costs and expenses to be incurred by the ment of the costs, &c. The trustees employed trustees, or any persons employed by them, in a solicitor, and they raised a sum of money prosecuting or defending any action touching

7. Executors.-A solicitor was employed by a testator in his life time, and by his executors and trustees after his death. The latter applied for the taxation of the bills subsequent to the death: Held, that the solicitor was, on this application, entitled to have a taxation of all the bills. Dalby, in re, 8 Beav. 469.

8. Parliamentary business.-If a bill of costs contains charges relating to parliamentary business, and also charges relating to general business, the Court of Chancery has jurisdiction, under the act 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, to make an order for its taxation; and it is unnecessary to obtain the Speaker's warrant, under the 6 G. 4, c. 123, for taxing those costs which relate to the parliamentary matters. In re George Smith, 33 L. (. 187.

Analytical Digest of Cases.Superior Courts: Lord Chancellor.

the execution of the act, should be defrayed out of the money arising by virtue of the act, or the general law applicable to overseers and their accounts.

The 32nd Order of August, 1841, applies to the case of an information filed against individual members of a body of public trustees, charging such individuals with a breach of trust. Attorney-General v. Pearson, 2 Coll.

581.

Case cited in the judgment: Attorney-General v. Compton, 1 Y. & C., C. C. 417.

3. Apportionment between real and personal estate. The trusts of a mixed residuary gift of real and personal estate having failed, the costs of a suit by the next of kin, claiming the whole on the ground that the real estate was converted out and out, were appropriated between the real and personal estates, although the title of the heir to the land was held to be so clear that the court adjuged it to him in the absence of some of the next of kin. Christian v. Foster,

2 Phill. 161.

Cases cited in the judgment: Howse v. Chapman, 4 Ves. 542; Ackroyd v. Smithson, 1 Bro. C. C. 503; Attorney-General v. Lord Winchelsea, 3 Bro. C. C. 373; Attorney-General v. Hurst, Cox, 364. See Breach of Trust.

227

informed the officer at the time of his arrest that he was proceeding to procure refreshment, and Mr. Romilly contended that he had not unnecessarily deviated beyond such limits as the court would allow. He cited Hatch v Blissett, Gilb. 308; Lightfoot v. Cameron, 2 Wm. Blackstone, 1113; Pitt v. Coomes, 5 Barn. & Adol. 1078, and the cases there quoted by Littledale, J.; Exparte Clark, Re Sewerkropp, 2 Dea. & Chitty, 99; Exparte Watkins, in the Attorney-General v. Skinners' Company, 1 Cooper, 1, (also in 8 Sim. 377); and Re J. T., 7 Beav. 157. in Attorney-General v. Leathersellers' Company,

[blocks in formation]

The Lord Chancellor, after hearing Mr. extend the protection to the present case. In Romilly in reply, said he did not think he could the court did not mean to say that he was to requiring the party to return straight home proceed in the most direct line possible; but out of his route. The affidavit did not state here there was a deviation of nearly 400 yards that he told the officer he was going to dine at the place near which he was arrested, and therefore it was not proved to his lordship's

RECENT DECISIONS IN THE SUPE- satisfaction. The application must be refused,

RIOR COURTS.

REPORTED BY BARRISTERS OF THE SEVERAL

COURTS.

Lord Chancellor.

Re Nias. May 8th, 1847.

PRIVILEGE OF SOLICITOR FROM ARREST.

An obvious deviation from the direct route, unexplained at the time of being taken into custody, will deprive a solicitor of his privilege of freedom from arrest whilst returning home from the court in which he has been engaged in the suit of his client. Mr. Romilly stated that this was an application by the solicitor for the plaintiff in the cause of Jones v. Rose, to be discharged from custody under the following circumstances :-Upon returning to his office in Copthall Court, in the city, from the Lord Chancellor's Court at Westminster, on the previous Saturday, where he had attended professionally in the suit, he had taken the steam-boat to London Bridge, and was proceeding to the Ship Tavern, in Water Lane, for the purpose of obtaining his dinner, when he was arrested between the western door of the Custom-House and the Coal Exchange, under a writ of attachment issued by the Master of the Rolls on the 21st of Dec. last. The divergence from the direct route from London Bridge to Copthall Court was a little above 300 yards, and he was taken into custody at a quarter before 3 o'clock, having left Westminster a few minutes after 2 o'clock. The affidavit did not state that he

[blocks in formation]

DISCHARGING ORDER OF COURSE.

An order of course can only be discharged upon the ground of irregularity in obtaining it.

Mr. Lee and Mr. Selwyn said, that in this cause James and Buckle had been appointed joint receivers. Buckle had also an interest in the suit, and was desirous of getting in the accounts. Being prepared with his own, but unable to procure those from James, he took out a warrant for the latter to carry in his accounts, and procured an order from the Master that they should be brought in within a specified time. After the expiration of the time allowed, the Master certified that James had made default in bringing in his accounts, and Buckle, on the 18th of Feb. last, obtained the usual four day order that James should bring them in within four days after personal service of it. This order was subsequently discharged by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, upon motion by Counsel for James, and, as was represented, on the grounds that the court would not encourage Receivers in a cause to go out of the course of their ordinary business and take an active part in the proceedings. The present motion was to discharge his Honour's order.

Mr. K. Parker and Mr. Hardy, who appeared for James, having acquiesced in the above statement,

The Lord Chancellor remarked, that he could not conceive upon what grounds they had ap

« AnteriorContinuar »