Callow v Charles Jenkinson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 1851 |
| Date | 04 June 1851 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 710
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 20 L J Ex 321
[666] callow v charles jenkenson June 4, 1831 -Case by one attorney against another for falsely representing that he, the defendant, was authonsed by F , as hrs agent, to employ the plaintiff as attorney of F to bring actions in his name , that the defendant did so employ the plaintiff, who was compelled to discontinue the actions, and pay costs Plea, that the plaintiff was not employed modo et forma Replication, by way of estoppel, that the plaintiff's bill of costs in the actions delivered to the defendant and one O and one J , was referred by a Judge's order to a Master for taxation, with libeity to the defendant and J to dispute the retainer, that the Master allowed 1921, and the plaintiff sued the defendant, 0 , and J for that sum , and the question of retainei havmg been referred to the Master, he certified that a retainer by the defendant, 0 , and J , was proved to the amount of 1201 , whereupon the plaintiff obtained judgment for that sum, and costs -Held, that the teplication was bad, the (r) See Baiton v Biomt, 5 M & W '298 BEX6S7 CALLOW V. JEJsKINSON 711 finding of the Master m lespect of the retainei being no estoppel in the present action -Semble also, that the replication was a departure [S C 20 L J Ex 321 ] Case The farst count of the declaration, after stating, by way of inducement, that the plaintiff and defendant were attornies of the Court of Exchequer, that the defendant falsely and fraudulently represented to the plaintiff, that he the defendant was authorised and empowered by and on behalf of one J Fennell, and as his agent, to cause to be commenced an action of assumpsit, in the name of J Fennell, against J Chapman and W Burke, in the Court of Exchequer, foi the recovery of 321 8s (id , and to retain and employ the plaintiff as attorney for J Fennell to bung such action m his name, lyy means of which false and fraudulent representations the plaintiff then undertook to bung, and did bring, such action in the name of J Fennell, against J Chapman and W Burke, and acted as attorney foi J Fennell in such action Averment, that the defendant was not authorised or empowered to retain or employ the plaintiff to bung the said action, and that the plaintiff, on that account, was compelled to abandon and discontinue the said action, and as attorney for the plaintiff to pay the defendants 141 17s 6d , being...
To continue reading
Request your trial