Clutterbuck, Gent., one, Company, Assignee of Gingell, a Bankrupt, against Combes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 1833 |
| Date | 11 June 1833 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 110 E.R. 838
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
clutterbuck, gent., one, &c., Assignee of Gingell, a Bankrupt, against combes, Tuesday, June llth, 1833. The Court of King's Bench does not exercise any common law jurisdiction in taxing attorney's bills. The Court, in the exercise of its statutory jurisdiction, refused to order an attorney's bill to be taxed at the instance of a third person, where the client had before admitted the amount to be due, and declined taxing the bill; such client having since become bankrupt, and the application being made for the purpose of reducing bis claim so as to prevent his being a good petitioning creditor. The plaintiff having been employed by Gingell to conduct a cause for him, delivered his bill of costs, and proposed that Gingell should have it taxed, which he declined to do, saying there was nothing to object to. The plaintiff then had it taxed, and it amounted to 981. [401] Gingell afterwards petitioned the Insolvent Court, and filed a schedule, containing an admission of this debt. Before he obtained his discharge, the plaintiff and another creditor (their demands together exceeding 1501.) struck a docket against him: a commission issued, under which the plaintiff was appointed sole assignee; and in that character he commenced the present action, to recover a debt due to the bankrupt. The defendant's attorney applied to a Judge at chambers for an order to tax the plaintiff's bill of costs; the object being to reduce his claim upon the bankrupt so far, that the demands of the two petitioning creditors should, together, be insufficient to sustain the commission. The order having been made, a 5B.&AD.402. IN THE MATTER OF LEEMING AND FEARNLEY 839 rule was obtained in Easter term for setting it aside. There was an affidavit, among others, by the bankrupt, in support of the application, complaining of items in the account, and assigning reasons to explain his not having had it taxed before. B. V. Richards now shewed cause. This Court may order the taxation, by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v Tew
...refer the bill to taxation, regarding the matter as doubtful. Subsequently in other cases dicta were pronounced to the same effect: Clutterbuck v. Combes (1833) 5 B. & Ad. 400; Ex parte King (1834) 3 Nev. & Man. 437; and Ex parte Bowles's Trustees (1835) 1 Bing. (N. C.) 632. In 1835 in Doe ......
-
Bastable v Reardon
...v. SpringateENR 1 Salk. 332. Ex parte KingUNK 3 Nev. & M. 437. Burton v. ChattertonENR 3 B. & Ald. 486. Clutterbuck v. CombesENR 5 B. & Ad. 400. Dagley v. KentishENR 2 B. & Ad. 411. Weymouth v. KnipeENR 3 Bing. N. C. 387; S. C. 3 Scott, 764. Rogers v. Peterson 7 Dowl. D. C. 187. Hobby v. Pr......
-
Marris, Gent., one, &
...an attorney, though his being an attorney may have been the motive for employing him. (J) 2 B. & Ad. 411; and see Clutterbuck v. Cmnbes, 5 B. & Ad. 400. K. B. XL.-8 226 EX PARTE PHILLIPS 3 AD. ft E. B86. Littledale J. In re Aitkin (4 B. & Aid. 47), was a different case. If the charge made h......
-
White and Another v Irving
...sustained. lord abinger, C. B. It would be quite sufficient to allege that the party made (c) 2 B. A Ad. 411. See ChUterbw.k v. Coombs, 5 B. & Ad. 400; Howard v. Groom, 4 Dowl. P. C. 21. COX V. SALMON 2M. &W. 128. Che affidavit, intending to use it for the purpose of instituting proceeding*......