Baikie, Esq. v Chandless, Gent One, &
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 June 1811 |
| Date | 08 June 1811 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1291
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
Saturday, .Tune 8, 1811. baikie, esq. v chandless, gent one, &c. (An attorney employed to purchase and prepare the assignment of an annuity before the decisions holding that the trusts in the annuity deeds must be particularly set forth in the memorial, is not liable for negligence in not having pointed out to his employer that the annuity purchased was void because the memorial omitted particularly to specifiy the trusts of the annuity deeds In an action against an attorney for negligence in respect to the memorial of an annuity which he had prepared and carried in to be enrolled, an examined copy of the roll is primu facie evidence of the original memorial ) This was an action against, the defendant for negligence in the purchase of an annuity for the plaintiff The declaration stated, that in consideration that the plam-[18]-tiff had retained the defendant to investigate and ascertain the validity of a certain annuity, the defendant undertook to perform his duty in and about the premises ; and although he afterwards caused and procured the plaintiff to accept an assignment of the said annuity, and to pay 216 for the purchase thereof, and it thereupon became and was his duty to take due care in ascertaining that a sufficient memorial of the said annuity action on 5 Eliz. for setting on work an unqualified person in the trade of a farrier, the evidence being that this person had never assisted in the curing of horses, nor had made any article of iron, manufacture, but had only been employed as out-door man, in nailing on horses' shoes made by others, Lord Ellenborough was of opinion that thia was not a working in the business of a famer, and directed a nonsuit, which the Court of K. B. afterwards refused to set aside. 1292 BAIKTE V. CHANDLESS 3 CAMP. 19. had been and was duly enrolled according to the form, effect, and exigency of the statute in such case made and provided , yet that he did not do so, and that for want of a sufficient memorial of the said annuity having been enrolled as aforesaid, the said annuity was wholly invalid. The annuity in question of 3f) was granted on the 2f th of June 1792. by the Honourable General John Leslie to one George Wilson, during the life of the grantor General Leslie assigned his pay, as an officer in the guards m trust to secure the payment of the annuity, and to dispose of the surplus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Forrester v Francis
...is also referred to in the printed papers. It was still more expressly laid down by Lord Ellenborough in the case of Baikie v. Chandless ( 3 Camp. 17), because there Lord Ellenborough uses the expression, “an attorney is only liable for crassa negligentia;” therefore, the record must bring ......
-
Richard Watters v The Heir and Terretenants of George Lidwill
...v. WalpoleENR 14 East, 231. See the authorities on this subject, I Stark, Evid. 410. Rex v. HopperENR 3 Price, 495. Bailie v. ChandlessENR 3 Camp. 17. Bruce v. Cooke 1 H. & Br. 310. Lewis v. ParkesENR 3 M. & W. 133. Malcolmson v. Gregory 1 H. & B. 310. Fulton v. Creagh 5 Ir. Law Rep. 322, i......
-
Stokes v Trumper
...does not disentitle a solicitor to the amount of his bill of costs. Upon this subject the authorities are clear. In Baikie v. Chandless (3 Camp. 17, 20) Lord Ellenborough says, " An attorney is only liable for erassa negligentia; and it is impossible to impute that to the Defendant for not ......
-
Doe on the demise of Taylor v Johnson
...by contmu- * See Templer v. M'Laghlan, 2 N. R, 136 ; Gunter v Clayton, 2 Lev. 85 ; Johnson v Alston, 1 Campb. 176 ; Batkie v Chandless, 3 Campb 17 ; Cotnplon v, Chandlers, 3 Campb. 19. N. P. II-17 514 MARTIN V. BELL 1 STARE. 412. ing in possession of [412] the goods aiter the 2Uth, had ther......