Bricheno v Thorp
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 September 1821 |
| Date | 05 September 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 864
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Little v. Kingswood Collieries Co., 1882, 20, Ch. D. 738.
[300] bricheno v. thorp. March 31, fiept. 5, 1821. [See Little v. Kingswood Collieries Co., 1882, 20 Oh. D. 738.] A clerk to a solicitor commencing practice for himself, not to be restrained from acting as solicitor for parties against whom his master was employed, upon general allegations of his having, in his former service, acquired information likely to be prejudicial to the clients of his master. A motion was made on the part of the Plaintiffs, that the Defendants might be restrained from employing G. (f. Day, as their solicitor in this suit, or as their attorney or solicitor in any other suit in equity or action at law, commenced or to be commenced in respect of the matters in question in this cause, and to restrain G. G. Day from acting as their solicitor or attorney, and from communicating to them, their counsel, clerks in court, solicitor, attornies, or agents, any information relating to the matters in dispute in such suits or actions which had come to his knowledge, as clerk to the Plaintiff, T. E. Fisher. The suit was commenced in the year 181(i, for the purpose of setting aside a bond entered into by the Plaintiff Bricheno, and by the Plaintiff Fisher, as his surety, to the Defendants, upon allegations of its having been obtained by misrepresentation. Fisher was the solicitor for himself and the Plaintiff Bricheno, in the cause. G. G. Day, had been his articled clerk from the year 1812 until October 1817, when his articles expired. In the year 1818 he was admitted an attorney, and commenced practice on his own account. He had lately become the solicitor of the Defendants in the cause. It was stated in the affidavits filed on the part of the Plaintiffs, that G. G. Day, during his clerkship, had been confidentially acquainted with the circumstances JACOB, 301. BRIOHENO V. THORP 865 of tho suit, that ho had been employed to search for eases, and copy affidavits and other proceedings, and had thereby acquired information which would render his [301] being concerned for the Defendants highly prejudicial to the Plaintiffs ; it was intimated that he had been retained for the purpose of taking advantage of ii disclosure of the information thus acquired. On the other side this imputation was denied; and it was stated, that Mr. Day had been the solicitor of the Defendants and of their family in other matters...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Sykt Pengangkutan Sakti Sdn Bhd v Tan Joo Khing t/a Bengkel Sen Tak
-
Seet Melvin v The Law Society of Singapore
...PP [1993] 3 SLR (R) 656; [1994] 1 SLR 119 (refd) Baugh v Cradocke (1832) 1 M & Rob 182; 174 ER 62 (distd) Bricheno v Thorp (1821) Jac 300; 37 ER 864 (refd) Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (distd) Calcraft v Guest [1898] 1 QB 759 (refd) Cheong Kim Hock v Lin Securities (Pte) [1992] 1 SLR (R) 497......
- Re a Firm of Solicitors
-
Chant v Brown
...165). [793] On the other side, in favour of the admission of the evidence, the following authorities were referred to:--Bricheno v. Thorp (Jac. 300), Sandford v. Eemington (2 Ves. jun. 189), Brickell v. Hulse (7 A. & E. 454), BlemMnsopp v. Blenkinsopp (2 Ph. 607; 12 Beav. 568), Beynell v. S......
-
Preliminary Sections
...of the North- Eastern State of Nigeria, Appeal No. NEM/48A/68, unreported. •. •• • • • ' ' . . . . 120 Bricheno v. Thorp (1821) Jac 300; 37 E.R. 864. . • • • • . . . . . 138 British Wagon Company v. Gray (1896) 1 Q.B. 35. • . • • • . 33 Brown v. Gould & Ors (1971) 3 W.L.R. 334. . • • • . . ......
-
Agency
...Cholmondeley v. Clinton. The latter, in our view, was a plain and straightforward case. In the case of Bricheno v. Thorp (1821) Jac. 300; 37 E.R. 864, the Court refused to restrain a clerk to a solicitor, who had commenced practice himself, from acting as solicitor for parties against whom ......
-
Legal Practitioner
...Cholmondeley v. Clinton. The latter, in our view, was a plain and straightforward case. In the case of Bricheno v. Thorp (1821) Jac. 300; 37 E.R. 864, the Court refused to restrain a clerk to a solicitor, who had commenced practice himself, from acting as solicitor for parties against whom ......