Detillin v Gale
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 August 1802 |
| Date | 13 August 1802 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 32 E.R. 234
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
See Dryden v. Frost, 1838. 3 My. & Cr. 675: National Provincial Bank of England, v. Games, 1886, 31 Ch. D. 592.
detillin v. gale. Aug. \3th, 1802. [See D-ryden v. Frost, 1838, 3 My. & Cr. 075 : National Provincial Bank of England, v. Games, 188G, 31 Ch. D. 592.1 Mortgagee, though entitled to costs in general, deprived of costs occasioned by improper conduct; and even compelled to pay costs. The bill in this cause, among other objects, prayed a redemption and account against the Defendant Sidney who, having been employed by the Plaintiff as his solicitor and agent, took a bond and judgment and a mortgage for his bill without any settlement of accounts between them. An inquiry having been directed as to what was due to the Defendant upon his securities and otherwise, great delay and expensive litigation was [584] occasioned by his conduct, before any account could be procured from him ; and finally his demand was reduced by a great deal more than a sixth. The Plaintiff pressed for a general account against him, with rests, and also for costs. For the Defendant it was insisted, that there was no instance of making a mortgagee pay costs, and that in that character he was entitled to his costs. 7 VES. JUN. 885. DETILLIN V. GALE 235 Mr. Richards and Mr. Hall, for the Plaintiff; Mr. Piggott and Mr. Fonblanque, for the Defendant. The Lord Chancellor [Eldon]. Upon the transactions and circumstances of this case a bill might have been filed, that would have called for the decree now prayed : the Defendant, standing in the character of Attorney and Solicitor, and general Manager, converting the debt from his client into a mortgage and judgment, when the accounts were unsettled and the balance might be doubtful. A bill producing that state of circumstances, and alleging, that it was against the duty of the Defendant, in his character of agent to take a security, carrying interest, instead of discharging the demand by the money of his employer, as received by him, might have been filed, to have a decree for a general account, without regard to the security ; and that in that account interest should not be allowed on one side, and not upon the other. The first obligation upon the Defendant, standing in that relation to the Plaintiff, is, a duty upon this part perfectly easy, that his accounts ought to have been quite clear. The conclusion upon his answer to this bill for an account, that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank Plc (No. 2)
...necessary to refer to the more important of them. The principal decisions which support the general rule are those of Lord Eldon L.C. in Detillin v. Gale (1802) 7 Ves. 583, of Lord Cottenham L.C. in Dryden v. Frost (1838) 3 My. & Cr. 670 and of this court (Cotton, Bowen and Fry L.JJ.) in Na......
-
Alberta (Treasury Branches) v. 1401057 Alberta Ltd. et al., 2013 ABQB 748
...to. [para. 37, footnote 19]. Cottrell v. Finney (1874), 43 L.J. Ch. 562 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 19]. Detillin v. Gale (1802), 32 E.R. 234 (Ch.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote Fleck v. Whitehead, [1924] 4 D.L.R. 797, refd to. [para. 40]. Canadian Mortgage Investment Co. v. Baird ......
- Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd and Others v Minories Finance Ltd and Others (No 2)
-
Weston v Aughton Flats Pty Ltd, in the matter of Empire Property and Investment Group Pty Ltd (in liq)
...58 WN(NSW) 132 at 134, per Street J. The principle applied in Re Shanahan was not novel. It is commonly sourced to Detillin v Gale (1802) 7 Ves Jun 583; 32 ER 234, per Lord Eldon LC, and Cotterell v Stratton (1872) LR 8 Ch App 295, per Lord Selborne LC: see E L G Tyler, P W Young and C Crof......