Beadon v King
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 May 1849 |
| Date | 31 May 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 60 E.R. 1039
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 13 Jur. 550.
Production of Documents. Privileged Communications.
[34] beadon v. king. May 31, 1849. [S. C. 13 Jur. 550.] Production of Documents. Privileged Communications. Letters alleged by a Defendant to have passed between him and his solicitor in the course of and for the purpose of professional business, which the solicitor was-employed to transact for him; and a case alleged to have been professionally and confidentially submitted to counsel, by the solicitor of the Defendant and on his behalf, and" die opinion thereon, held not to be privileged. But a case alleged to have been submitted to counsel by the Defendant's solicitor, in contemplation of legal proceedings and with reference to the title of the Defendant at issue in the present suit, and the opinion thereon, held to be privileged. In 1808 certain lands of which a prebendary was seised in right of his prebend were sold under the Land Tax Redemption Act (42 Geo. III. c. 116), and purchased by the prebendary in the name of a trustee. Afterwards the prebendary and his trustee conveyed part of the lands to different purchasers, and the remainder to his son, voluntarily. The prebendary died in 1827. His immediate successor resigned in 1833, and was succeeded by the Plaintiff. The bill was filed in 1848 against the son and the personal representatives of the first-mentioned prebendary, to set aside the sale and conveyance of 1808, and to recover the lands remaining unsold and the monies [35] produced by the sale of such part of the lands as had been sold, on the ground that the sale of 1808 was made for an inadequate consideration, and was not -authorized by the Land Tax Redemption Act. The son's answer, after negativing the grounds on which the bill impeached 1040 BEADON V. KING 17 SIM. 38. the sale, admitted (in answer to the usual charge) that he had, in his possession, drafts of the conveyances to the purchasers of the parts of the lands which had been sold ; several letters which had passed between him and hia late father and their solicitors ; and threeicaaes laid before their counsel, one in 1827, another in 1833, and the third in 1847, with the opinions thereon; but he submitted that he ought not to be compelled to produce any of those documents, because the drafts related exclusively to the titles of the several purchasers of fche land sold, and the Plaintiff had no common interest nor any interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholl v Jones
...lay down a different rule.] Mr. Turner continued. As to the advice given, he cited Pearse v. Pearse (1 De Cr. & Sm. 12); Beadon v. King (17 Sim. 34); on the question of production of the instructions, Manser v. Dix (1 K. & J. 451); JValsham v. Stainton (ante, p. 1). The item, "a bundle of l......
-
Manser v Dix
...reference to any dispute, and a case and opinion concerning the property in the same position, were ordered to be produced: Beadon v. King (17 Sim. 34). So written communications between a vendor and his solicitor, which passed before any dispute had arisen between him and the purchaser, we......
-
Thompson v Falk
...the language used. The following cases were also cited -.-Flight v. Robinson (8 Beav. 22), Woods v. Woods (4 Hare, 83), Beadon v. King (17 Sim. 34), Hawkins v. Gathercole (1 Sim. (N. S.) 150). the ViOE-CHANOELLOE [Sir E. T. Kindersley]. The question is whether the litigation which was pendi......
-
Bluck v Galsworthy
...It was not asked that documents existing post lltem rnotam should be produced, but the bill was only filed recently. [Beadon v. King (17 Sim. 34), Greenlaw v. King (1 Beav. 137), Wynne v. Humberston . (27 Beav. 421), were cited.] (1) The second part of the second schedule was as follows:- 1......