Attorney General v Lord Carrington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1843 |
| Date | 06 June 1843 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 901
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 453.
[454] the attorney-general v. lord carrixiitox. June, 6, 1843. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 453.] An information related to two objects, one failed, and the decree dismissed so much of the information as related to it, without costs, and ordered the Defendant to pay the informant his costs of the suit. Held, that the Taxing Master was wrong in apportioning the general costs of suit between the two objects. The Court will not interfere with the discretion of the Taxing Masters as to the quantum of fees to counsel. Costs of process of contempt for not answering, not allowed in the taxation of costs of suit as between party and party. By the decree the lands of the Defendant were declared chargeable with £40 a year, and the Master was directed to take an account of the arrears, and the Defendant was ordered to pay what should be found due. Held, that the Defendant was not, under the 1 & 2 Viet. c. 110, ss. 17, 18, liable to pay interest on the amount due, from the date of the decree to the date of the Master's report. This case came before the Court upon petition, partly impugning the correctness of the Master's taxation of costs. 902 ATTORNEY-UENEUAL V. LOKD CAURINGTON 6 BEAV. MS. The information was filed, seeking to charge the estates of Lord Carrington with two perpetual annuities of £40 and £4. At the hearing, the relief in respect to the latter was abandoned, and by the decree it was ordered, that so much of the information as sought to charge the lands with the payment of the annuity of £4 should lie dismissed without costs. And it was declared that the said lauds were chargeable with the annuity of £40 per annum, and an account of the arrears was directed, and it was ordered that the Defendant Lord Carrington should pay into the bank what should be found to be the amount of the arrears, and it was ordered, that the said Defendant should pay to the informant his costs of the, suit, and also pay to the other Defendants their costs of the suit, the said costs to be taxed by the Taxing Master. The Attorney-G-eneral took in his bill of costs for taxation, which amounted to-£333. The Taxing Master taxed it at £101, having struck oft' several items, and having disallowed £79 by way of apportionment of the general costs of the suit common to the two annuities of £4 and £40. [455] What took place on the taxation as to this latter item, will be best explained by the following extract from the Taxing Master's note :- " On the taxation of the bill of costs of the informant, it was insisted before me, on the part of the Defendant Lord Carrington, that inasmuch as the information had been filed to establish two distinct annuities, and as the informant had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v Bunn
...by this House, if your Lordships allow the appeals, is entirely in accord with the decision in Attorney-General v. Lord Carrington (1843) 6 Beav. 454. This case is of respectable antiquity. It was decided only five years after the Judgments Act was passed, and therefore at a time when the p......
-
JSC VTB Bank v Alexander Katunin
... ... Lord Ackner said: 2 “The wording of [the English provision] ... v Bunn , where he referred to: 6 “the decision in Attorney-General v Lord Carrington ... 7 This case is of respectable antiquity. It ... ...
- Reis v Carling
-
Paradise Island Ltd v Wells
...what shall be found due, interest runs from the date of the certificate of the amount due: vide the Attorney-General v. Lord Carrington (1843) 6 Beav. 454. 12 In Ashover Fluor Spar Mines, Limited, v. Jackson [1911] 2 Ch. 355 where by a consent order an action was compromised on the terms th......