Brundson against Allard

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date09 June 1859
Date09 June 1859
CourtHigh Court

English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 8

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

Brundson against Allard

brunsdon against allard. Thursday, June 9th, 1859. An attorney's right of lien for his costs, on a judgment recovered by his client, is subject to the right of the parties to the action to make a bona fide compromise. The result of such compromise is that the lien is lost. But the lien may prevail against a collusive compromise made by the parties with the express object of defeating it.-The parties to cross actions, the plaintiff in each of which had obtained judgment, bona fide compromised the actions, after notice to one of them and his attorney from the attorney of the other not to do so in prejudice of the latter's lien on his client's judgment. Held, that the attorney had no ground for claiming the equitable interference of the Court to enforce his lien. [S. G 28 L. J. Q. B. 306; 5 Jur. N. S. 596; 7 W. R. 581. Applied, Slater v. Swnderland Corporation, 1863, 33 L. J. Q. B. 38. Referred to, Exparte Games, 1864, 3 H. & C. 298; Mercer v. Graves, 1872, L. R. 7. Q. B. 505. Approved, The Hope, 1883, 8 P. D. 144. Referred to, Moss v. Bwcton, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 197, 200. Discussed, Priee v. Crouch, 1891, 60 L. J. Q. B. 769.] Blackburn, in last Easter Term, obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff, the defendant, and Sturgis, the provisional assignee of the Insolvent Court, to shew pause why 2 EL. fc EL. 20. BRUNSDON V. ALLARD 9 the defendant should not pay to Benjamin Hope, the plaintiff's attorney, the amount of his costs in this action, or why Hope should not be at liberty to issue execution on the judgment in this action ; or why he should not be at liberty to bring an action on the judgment in the name of the party in whom the legal interest was vested, It appeared from the affidavits on which the rule was obtained, that this was one of two cross actions. The writ in Brunsdmt v. Allard was issued on 16th November, 1858, and the action was brought by the plaintiff, the defendant's tenant, to recover damages from the [20] defendant for wrongfully preventing the plaintiff from underletting the demised premises. The writ in Allard v. Brunsdon was issued on 30th December, 1858. It was an action for two quarter's rent of the same premises. Judgment for 521. 10s., debt and costs, was signed, by consent, in Allard v. Brunsdon, on 3d February, 1859. Brunsdon v. Allard was tried on 2d February, 1859, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict for 121. 10s.; but judgment for 461. 3s., damages and costs in this action, was not signed till 9th April following. On 14th February, Allard took out a summons to set off, against the damages and costs in Brunsdon v. Allard, the debt and coats in Allard v. Brunsdon, and to refer it to the Master to take an account of the cross judgments, and to give his allocatur for such sum as might, on taking the account, be found due to either party. This summons was heard by Hill J., who indorsed on it an order that the set-off should be allowed "subject to and without prejudice to the attorney's lien ;" but no order was ever drawn up or served. A ca. sa. was issued on the judgment in Allard v. Brunsdon, under which Brunsdoti was taken in execution on 24th February; whereupon he petitioned the Insolvent Court, and was opposed by Allard upon this judgment. Hope was Brunsdon's attorney in the actions, but Messrs. Lewis & Lewis were employed as his attorneys in the Insolvent Court. On 18th April Messrs. Lewis & Lewis wrote to Messrs. Eogerson & Ford, Allard's attorneys, the following letter: " Brunsdon v...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Khans Solicitors (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and another
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 8 May 2013
    ... Ormerod v Tate (1801) 1 East 463 ; 102 E.R. 179 (Lord Kenyon CJ) White v Pearce (1849) 1 Hare 276 ; 68 E.R.113 (Wigram V-C) Brunsdon v Allard (1859) 2 El. & El. 19 (QBD) The Hope (1883) 8 P.D. 144 (CA) Ross v Buxton (1889) LR 42 Ch.D. 190 (Stirling J) Re Margetson and Jones ......

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