Bunn, Executor of Bunn, against Guy
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 November 1803 |
| Date | 07 November 1803 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 803
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Referred to, Maxim Nordenfelt, &c., Company v. Nordenfelt [1903], 1 Ch. 655; [1904], A. C. 563.
bunn, Executor of Bunn, against guy. Monday, Nov. 7th, 1803. A contract 'entered into by a practising attorney to relinquish his business and recommend his clients to two other attornies for a valuable consideration, and that he would not himself practise in such business within certain limits, and would permit them to make use of bis name in their firm for a certain time, but without his interference, &e. was holden to be valid in law. [Referred to, Maxim Norden/elt, &c., Company v. Nmdenfelt [1903], 1 Ch. 655; [1904], A. C. 563.] Upon a question arising in the Court of Chancery, concerning the marshalling of assets, the following case was sent by the Lord Chancellor for the opinion of this Court, as to the validity of the securities after mentioned, [191] Mr. C. Carpenter having, before the 6th of December 1797, been admitted and practising as an attorney and solicitor of the Courts in London, agreed with Mr. J. Bunn (since deceased) and Mr. J. G-uy, who had also been previously admitted and were then practising as such attornies and solicitors, in consideration of the sums of money and annuity, &e. after mentioned, to relinquish and make over his practice and business to them upon the conditions specified in the agreement hereinafter set forth. Accordingly, on the 6th of December 1797, by articles of agreement duly stamped, sealed, and executed, by C. Carpenter on the one part, and J. Bunn and J. Guy of the other part, C. Carpenter, in consideration of the several sums of money and annuity herein-after mentioned to be paid and secured to him, agreed that he would, on the 25th of the same December, relinquish and make over unto J. Bunn and J. Guy all benefit and advantage of his business as an attorney, solicitor; and conveyancer, so far as respected his practice in the profession of the law within London and 150 miles from thence, and all his business as agent for any attorney, &c. That he (Carpenter) would not, after the said 25th of December, practise as an attorney, solicitor, or conveyancer, or as agent for any attorney, within the limits aforesaid, and that he would endeavour, by every means in his power, to influence and induce as many of his clients as he could (whose business he thereby agreed to give up and relinquish) to become the clients of Bunn and Guy. That he would, by personal application, writing circular letters, or otherwise, introduce or endeavour to introduce Bunn and Guy to the notice and favour of all such his clients; and also would permit them to practise as attornies, &c. under the stile and firm of Carpenter, Bunn, and Guy, for one year, and afterwards for one year [192] more (but no longer), if Bunn and Guy should so long require to use his (Carpenter's) name in such firm : (a)1 33 Geo. 3, c. 4. Vide Merrick v. Faucher, 6 Term Eep. 50, and Coles v. De Hayne, ib. 52. So in the case of transportation of the principal. Wood v. Mitchell, 'ib. 247. (of Trinder v. Shirley, Dougl. 45. (6) Langridge v. Flood, H. 26 G, 3, 1 Tidd, 152. (c) Wj/nn v. Petty, ante, 102. 804 BUNN V. GtTY 4 EAST, 193. that he (Carpenter) would not claim any share in the profits to arise by such business, (except certain business mentioned for the proprietors of Drury-Lane Theatre), during the use of his (Carpenter's) name, he being indemnified against all losses and risks to arise therefrom; and that Bunn and Guy should carry on such business totally independent of him (Carpenter), in as full, ample, and beneficial a manner to all intents and purposes (except as aforesaid) as if the name of Carpenter were not made use of in such business. And in consideration of the premises Bunn and Guy jointly and severally agreed with Carpenter for the payment to him, on the said 25th of December, of 10001., and for effectually securing to him the further sum of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kennedy v Broun and Wife
...in law for a promise by such other as a consideration of profit or convenience to himself:" per Lord Ellenborough, ia Bunn v. Guy, 4 East, 190, 194, And see Shadwett v. Shadwell, ante, vol. ix., p. 159. If there be a good consideration, it will sustain the contract, though coupled with a ba......
-
Clarke and Another v Richards
...the subject of partnership with an unqualified person, notwithstanding the statute (stat. 22 Geo. 2, c. 46). The contract in Bunn v. Guy (4 East, 190) was analogous to the contract in this case. [The Lord Chief Baron. My difficulty is, how I am to hold that, under the circumstances of this ......
-
John Tallis against Frederick Tallis
...been held good, in any authoritative decision, except where the restriction has been qualified as to the subject matter. In Bunn v. Guy (4 East, 190), the restriction in effect applied [408] only to the clients of the contracting party ; the distance (one hundred and fifty miles) was not ad......
-
Hunlocke v Blacklowe
...in the case of a surgeon : 2 Chitt. Rep. 407, Hayward v. Young: London and one hundred and fifty miles round, in the case of an attorney : 4 East, 190, Sunn v. Guy: five miles from Northampton Square in the county of Middlesex, in the case of a milkman : 2 M. & Gr. 20, Praetor v. Sargent: 2......