Baron against Husband

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtCourt of the King's Bench
Judgment Date16 Apr 1833

English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 586

IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH

Baron against Husband

611] baron against husband. Tuesday, April 16tbj 1833. The solicitor to the assignees of a bankrupt, received from them a sum of money, to be applied in payment of the costs of the petitioning creditor up to the time of the choice of assignees. The solicitor offered to pay the money, on condition that the bill should undergo a subsequent taxation, but to that the petitioning creditor would not assent: Held, that the latter could not maintain money had and received thereupon against the solicitor, though after the above offer and refusal, he had authorised the solicitor to pay over part of the money iii discharge of commissioners' fees. Assumpsit for money had and received, &e. Plea, general issue. At the trial before Park J., at the last assizes for the county of Devon, it appeared that, in 1817, the plaintiff sued out a commission of bankrupt against one Birdwood. The plaintiff was both petitioning creditor and solicitor. His costs, previous to the choice of assignees, being 1941. 16s. 7d., the assignees paid him, at different times, 901. on account, leaving a balance due to him of 1041. 16s. 7d. After a lapse of fourteen years, the surviving assignees appointed the defendant their solicitor; and, on the 17th of June 1831, an audit having been appointed, they were proceeding to pass their accounts, taking credit for the balance due to the plaintiff. The commissioners required an order to be given for the payment before they would complete the audit; whereupon the defendant received a cheque from the assignees for 1041. 16s. 7d., for the purpose of settling the plaintiffs account, and undertook to do so. He thereupon immediately saw the plaintiff, and offered to pay him the money, provided he would give a receipt with an agreement that the costs should be subject to further taxation. This the plaintiff refused to do. It appeared that some fees, due to one of the, commissioners, were included in the 1041. 16s. 7d.; and that subsequently to the above interview, the defendant paid them to the commissioner, under the authority of an order from the plaintiff. There was no proof that the commissioners had ascertained the amount of costs, according to 5 G-. 2, c. 30, s. 25, and 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 14. [612] The learned Judge, being of opinion that this was necessary, nonsuited the plaintiff. Coleridge Serjt. now moved to set aside the nonsuit. The 5 G. 2, c. 30, (which was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Hutchinson and Another, Assignees of Hunt, a Bankrupt, against Heyworth and Others
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of the Queen's Bench
    • 1 December 1838
    ...to the authority." In Bailey v. Culverwell (8 B. & C. 448), an order by a debtor, (6) 3 B. & Aid. 643. See Baron v. Husband, 4 B. & Ad. 611; Howell v. Batt, 5 B. & Ad. 004; Lilly v. Hays, 5 A. & E. 548. 9 AD. &E. 393. HUTCHINSON V. HEYWORTH 1261 desiring brokers......
  • Loughnan v Barry and Byrne
    • Ireland
    • Common Pleas Division (Ireland)
    • 3 June 1872
    ...370. Hawse v. Crowe Ry. & Moo. 414. Moore v. BushellUNK 27 L. J. Ex. 3. Williams v. EverettENR 14 East, 581. Baron v. HusbandENR 4 B. & Ad. 611. White v. GardenENR 10 C. B. 919. Kingsford v. MerryENRENR 1 H. & N. 503; 11 Ex. 577. Masters v. IbbersonENR 8 C. B. 100. Childers v. W......
  • Treacy v Corcoran
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 January 1874
    ...Pleas. TREACY and CORCORAN. Jones v. Carter 8 Q. B. 134. Stephens v. BadcockENR 3 B. & Ad. 354. Baron v. HusbandENR 4 B. & Ad. 611. Barlow v. BrowneENR 16 M. & W. 126. Cobb v. Becke 6 Q. B. 930. Lowndes v. Earl of Stamford 18 Q. B. 425, 439. Jones v. Carter 8 Q. B. 134. Stephens......
  • Fitzgerald v Rowan
    • Ireland
    • Court of Common Pleas (Ireland)
    • 16 January 1855
    ...695. Kill v. Hollister 1 Wils. 129. Fleming v. Self 24 L. J, N. S., Chan. 29. Lunch v. Fitzgerald 2 Ir. Jur. 268. Baron v. HusbandENR 4 B. & Ad. 611. The King v. Mildenhall Savngs BankENR 6 Ad. & El. 952. The Queen v. Northwich Savings BankENR 9 Ad. & El. 729. The King v. Witham......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT