Cromack v Heathcote, Esq
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 April 1820 |
| Date | 26 April 1820 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 129 E.R. 857
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND OTHER COURTS
S. C. 4 Moore, 357. Overruled, R. v. Cox, 1884, 14 Q. B. D. 153.
cromack . heatiicote, esq. April 26, 1820. [S. C. 4 Moore, 357. Overruled, R. v. Cox, 1884, 14 Q. B. D. 153.] An attorney, being requested to draw an assignment of goods, refused, and the deed was drawn by another. The validity of the deed being afterwards questioned, on the ground of fraud, in an action against the sheriff in which the attorney first applied to was not employed : Held, that the communication made to this attorney was professional, and that evidence of the fraud proposed to be given through him, was properly rejected. Trespass against the sheriff for seizing goods under an execution. The defence set up was, that the goods had been conveyed by the father (against whom the execution issued) under a fraudulent assignment to the son. To prove the fraud, the Defendant proposed, among other evidence, to call Smith, an attorney, to whom the father had applied to draw the assignment, and who had refused to draw it, knowing that an execution had been issued against the father. This attorney was not employed in the cauae, and did not draw the assignment. Eicharcls C. B., before whom the cause was tried at the last Hertfordshire assizes, rejected this evidence, on the ground that it was a confidential communication made to an attorney. The jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff. Taddy Serjt. now moved to set aside this verdict and have a new trial, on the ground (among other objections) that this evidence had been improperly rejected. He contended, that the rule, as to the exclusion of the evidence of solicitors touching 858 HINDE, DEMANDANT 2 BROD. & B. B. matters on which they had been consulted, extends only to communications made in the [5] progress of a cause; and urged that a, solicitor had been examined touching a dissolution of partnership (a), and to prove the usurious consideration of a deed ho had drawn, Duffin v. Smith (Peake N. P. C. 146); and that Lord Kenyou seemed to confine the rule to communications made in the conduct of a cause, Cobden v. Kendrick (4 T. R. 431). He cited also Wilson v. Rastall (4 T. R. 753), and Du Barrd v. Livette (Peake N, P. C. 108). dallas C. J. The Plaintiff came to employ Smith as an attorney, though Smith happened to lefuse the employment. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v Falk
...(1 Phil. 91) the law was, that when the discovery is sought from the solicitor, his privilege is unlimited; Cromack v. Heathcote (2 Brod. & Bing. 4), Raddiffe v. Fwseman (2 Bro. P. C. 514, Tom. edit.). If the law were now even as it was in 1843, still these documents would be protected unde......
-
Pearse v Pearse
...are not privileged. [THE vice-chancellor. Is that doctrine consistent with Herring v. Clobery (1 Phill. 91) and Cromack v. Heafhcote (2 Brod. & Bing. 4)?] In those cases it seems to have been considered that all professional communications between attorney and client are privileged. But, su......
-
Herring v Clobery
...and Mr. Romilly, argued for the Plaintiffs in support of the objection, and cited the following cases :-Cronuickv. Heatlifotv (2 Brod. & Bing. 4), Harvey v. Clayton (2 Swanst. 221, n.), Walker \. Wildman (6 Madd. 47), Oltolmonddeii v. Clinton (19 Ves. 261), G-reefumgh v. Gaskell (1 M. & K. ......
-
Hughes v Biddulph
...letters ; otherwise I do not know how the Plaintiff could have compelled him to produce them." Cromack v. Heath-[l$l]-cote (2 Brod. & Bing. 4), Gardiner v. Mason (4 Bro. C. G. 479), Wright v. Mayer (6 Ves. 280), Atkyns v. Wright (14 Ves. 211), Evans v. Richard (1 Swanst. 8). Mr. Sugden and ......