Edgar v Hunter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Date | 01 January 1817 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 330
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
[528] edqab v hunter (Persona required to take out certificates under the 55th of Geo HI c 184 (schedule A. part 1, title Certificate) are only persons being members of the four Inns of Court, &c.) Action for work and labour. The plaintiff was a medical agent, and had been employed by the defendant in a negociation for the purchase of a medical business. A gentleman was found desirous to dispose of his practice , and the plaintiff drew up an agreement between the defendant and this person. The contract was not executed, and the plaintiff now sued the defendant for a compensation :-First, for preparing and drawing the agreement Secondly, for work and labour generally. The plaintiff had no licence under any Act of Parliament Best, serjeant, for the defendant, contended, that as the plaintiff charged for the agreement specifically, and as the work and labour were to be considered as subordinate only to the agreement, he ought to shew that he had a certificate. He must either produce a certificate as a conveyancer, or as a special pleader This was not an agreement for the sale of goods , but strictly a professional instrument. He relied on the 55th of Geo III c. 184 The object of the Act of Parliament was to prevent persons from preparing legal instruments who had not the proper professional qualifications. If the plaintiff was authorised to draw up an agreement of this kind-why not a mortgage, or a marriage settlement ? [529] Copley, serjeant, for the plaintiff. A certificate is not necessary There is no Act of Parliament that requires it. The statute referred to was not meant to prevent parties from negotiating a sale of property. If this construction prevailed, no man could draw up a contract for the sale of his own estate, without taking out a licence as a conveyancer, a special pleader, or an attorney But, admitting that the plaintiff was liable for an infringement of the stamp laws in having drawn up an agreement without a certificate, the agreement itself was not therefore invalid He relied on the 44th Geo. III. c 98, schedule A. title Special Exceptions . under which was a clause exempting from the obligation of taking...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v The Crowland Gas and Coke Company
...it was passed for a financial purpose, and not for the proteetron of the public against unqualified practitioners. In Edgai v Hunter (Holt, N P 528), which was an action by a medical [295J agent for drawing an agreement for the sale of a medical practice, Gibbs, C J , observed, that, suppos......
-
Hughes v Morley
...English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 324 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Hughes and Morley 324 HUGHES V. MOELEY HOLT 528. [520] Lancaster Assizes, 1817. March 25, 1817. hughes v. moblby. (1. Where the defendant pleads his certificate in bar, the plaintiff is at liberty to give evidence of gaming......