Candler v Candler
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 August 1821 |
| Date | 15 August 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 834
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
22 Geo. 2, c. 46, was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1871; see now Solicitor's Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73), s. 32.
candlee v. candler. Any. 15, 1821. [22 Geo. 2, c. 40, was repealed by the Statute Law Eevision Act, 1871 ; see now Solicitor's Act, 1843 (G & 7 Viet. c. 73), s. 32.] An agreement by an attorney to pay a share of the profits of his business to another person who is not an attorney, is not illegal. Semble. Receiver of the debts due to a business, appointed^at the suit of persons to whom a share of the profits had been assigned against a subsequent assignee of the debts. In October 1815, Henry Candler, who for some time had carried on the business of an attorney or solicitor and conveyancer at Tadcaster, died, leaving ten children and a widow. By his will he appointed his widow to be his executrix, and gave to her all his property, both real and personal, being satisfied that she would do strict and equal justice to all his children. By a deed executed shortly after his death, dated the 25th of October 1815, between Henry Candler, his eldest son, and Mary Candler, the widow ; it was recited, that from the love and affection which he (H. Candler) bore towards his mother and family, and in compKance with the wish and hope expressed by his father, and also under a due sense of the influence which his mother and family would retain with his father's clients and connections, he had agreed with the said Mary Candler to carry on the business of an attorney or solicitor and conveyancer at Tadcaster, and to account with her for [226] a moiety of the clear net profits, in consideration of which she was to supply him with money sufficient to carry on the business. It was witnessed, that he covenanted to carry on the business jacob, 227. candlkr r. candler 835 so long as any of the other children should be living unmarried and under twenty-one, and within two months after the taking of every yearly account to pay to Mary Gaudier, her executors, administrators, or assigns, a moiety of the clear net gains and profits ; and also to permit her to have free access to the books of account, to devote the whole of his time and attention to the business, to make out accounts annually, and to deliver to her a balance sheet of the net gains and profits. She covenanted to provide him with such sums as should be wanted by him, in order to carry on the business ; and also to use her utmost endeavours and influence to induce her friends and connections to employ him. The business continued to be carried on upon the footing of this deed. Mary Gaudier died in March 1816, having by her will left her real and personal property to trustees, upon certain trusts, for the benefit of her children. The bill was filed in February 1821, by the younger children, for an account of her estate ; it also sought against Henry Gaudier an account of the moiety of the profits of the business. It suggested that Henry Candler had made some assignment of the debts due to the business to W. Partington (who was also made a Defendant), and prayed an injunction to restrain them from getting them in, and a receiver. By the answer of Partington it appeared that H. Gaudier had by two deeds, dated in June 1820, assigned to F. W. Arkinstall all the debts then due, owing, or payable to him or to any person in trust for him, for or in respect of business done or monies expended by him [227] as attorney, solicitor, or conveyancer ; and also all money secured or bequeathed, or due or owing to him or to any person in trust for him. These assignments were made by way of security for a debt due to Arkinstall. In September 1820, Partington paid Arkinstall's debt, and took an assignment of the security. He stated that he had no notice of any other persons being interested with Candler in the business, and he claimed the benefit of his security, insisting that by the statute 22 G. 2, c. 46, s. 11, the deed of 25th October 1815, was illegal and void. An injunction had been granted by the Vice-Chancellor, and a motion for a receiver was now pending before him. A motion was made, on behalf of Parting-ton, to dissolve the injunction. Mr. Heald and Mr. Wakefield in support of the motion. The effect of the deed of October 1815, was to constitute a partnership in the business of an attorney between H. Candler and his mother ; he was to manage the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarke and Another v Richards
...share of the profits to another person who is not an attoiney is legal, notwithstanding the statute 22 Geo. 2, c. 46 : Candles v. Caiuller (Jacob, 225) , Armstrong v Lett-is (2 Cromp. & Mees. 274). Here, however, the parties were competent to contract the relation of partners as attormes In......
-
Armstrong v Lewis and Others
...what is said by Mr. 3. Bayley there is of importance, as it shews that it was not a hurried opinion. In Gundler v. dandier (6 Mad. 141 ; I Jacob, 225), an attorney having died and bequeathed all his property to his widow, his eldest son, for the mixed consideration of the good-will of the b......
-
Austen v Boys
...v. Howe (3 Beav. 383), Boson v. Farlow (1 Mer. 459), Essex v. Essex (20 Beav. 442), Caiman v. Barrel (1 Ves. jun. 50), Candler v. Candler (Jac. 225), Geddes v. Wallace (2 Bligh, 270), Bunn v. Guy (4 East, 190), Hitchcock v. Coker (6 A. & E. 438), Elves v. Crofts (10 C. B. 241), Cooper v. Wa......
-
Aubin v Holt
...leaving his name in it as an inducement to people to deal with the Defendant: Bunn v. Guy (4 East, 190; 1 Smith, 1), Candler v. Gaudier (Jac. 225), Thmnbury v. Bewll (1 Y. & C. C. C. 554). Then there is no claim for an account; for the items of [69] account are all on one side, and there ar......