Bridges One, & v Francis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1790 |
| Date | 22 May 1790 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 57
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
OASES Determined at NISI PRIUS in the COURT OF KING'S BKNCH, from the Sittings after Easter Term, 30 Cleo. ILL, to the Sittings after Michaelmas Term, 35 Geo. III., both inclusive. By THOMAS PEAKE, esq., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. The Third Edition Corrected, with some Additional Cases and References to subsequent Decisions. London, L820. [Note -The pagination used throughout is that of the third edition.] [1] after easter term, 30 george III 1790 Saturday, May 22d, 1790. At Westminster. bridges one, &c v francis (An agent to a country attorney is not obliged to deliver a bill signed. Nelson v Garfufh, I Esp Cas 221, S P ) This was an action of assuoipsit brought by the plaintiff for business done by him as agent for the defendant, who was a country attorney. It was objected that the bill was not signed. Lord Kenyon said, that signing a bill was necessary only where it was delivered to the proper client, and not where delivered by the agent to the attorney. Piggot and Garrow, the defendant's counsel, answered that they did not mean to contend that the bill should be signed and delivered a month previous to the commencement of the action as directed by the general attorney's Act (a)1, but that this case was within the Act of the 3 Jar I c. 7, [2] which, after enacting that no attorney, solicitor, or servant to any, should be allowed from his client or master, for any fee Ac unless he has a ticket subscribed &c further enacts, that " all attornies and solicitors shall give a true bill unto their masters or clients, or their assigns, of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The King against Ludlam, Chamberlain of London
...10 Mod. 294, 316. Banbury v. Lisset, 2 Stra. 1211. Person v. GarreU, Skin. 398, Comb. 227. Beardsley v. Baldwin, 2 Stra. 1151. Roberts v. Peake, 1 Burr. 325. Dawkes v. Delarain, 3 Wils. 207. 2 Bl. Eep. 782. Kingston v. Long, Bailey, 71. Peirson v. Dunlop, Dougl. 571. Carlos v. Tancourt, 5 T......
-
Hutton v The Scarborough Cliff Hotel Company Ltd
...assets could not be said in any way to have been withdrawn from administration in bankruptcy. [668] They also referred to Ex parte Peake (1 Madd. 346); Ex parte Walker (4 De G. F. & J. 509, and see In re Kemptner, L. R. 8 Eq. 286); Ex parte Snow (1 Cooke, B. L. 537). 1078 EX PARTE MAYOTJ 4 ......
-
Martha Worley against Harrison and Black
...note, because the payments are contingent upon the continuance of the life of the plaintiff; Carlos v. Fancourt (5 T. E. 482), Roberts v. Peake (1 Bur. 323), Leeds v. Lancashire (2 Campb. 205), Williamson v. Bennett (2 Campb. 417), Kingston v. Long (Bayley on Bills, p. 16, not. (30) (5th ed......
-
Cailiff and Another v Danvers
...Vide Regina v Dentnan, 2 Lord Rayni 1221 , Woodfotd v Ashley, 11 East, 508 , Impey v. Taylui, 1 M and S. 166 ; Rex. v. Roper, 1 Stark 518. PEAKE1M. HELLISH V. MOTTEUX 113 Assumpsit against the defendant as a warehouseman, for negligently keeping a quantity of ginseng, which had been deposit......