Ex parte Bryant

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHigh Court of Chancery
Judgment Date12 August 1815
Date12 August 1815

English Reports Citation: 56 E.R. 19


Ex parte Bryant

[49] Ex parte bryant. August 12, 1815. Person arrested on his return from proving a debt at Guildhall, discharged with costs of application. Though an order be made on a petition in bankruptcy, directing costs to be paid to the Petitioner personally, this does not take away the lien of the solicitor for his costs. William List having been arrested upon his return from Guildhall, where he had been proving a debt, petitioned the Chancellor for his discharge out of the custody of the Sheriffs of London; and that the sheriffs-officers who arrested him, and the attornies who employed them, might pay the costs, charges and expenses occasioned by the arrest. The Lord Chancellor ordered the Plaintiff in the action to discharge List out of the custody of the sheriffs, and that the Plaintiff, the Sheriffs of London, the attornies, and the sheriffs-officers, should pay List the costs, charges and expenses occasioned him by the arrest, such costs to be taxed by the Master, in case the parties differed about the same and that List be at liberty to proceed against any of such parties for the payment of such costs as he should think fit.(l) Bryant, the present Petitioner, was the attorney employed in presenting List's petition and obtaining the order. The order was served on the parties named in it, and the costs were taxed at (1) Lists case is reported 2 Ves. & Bea. 373, and in Rose's Cases in Bankruptcy, 2 vol. p. 24; and the same point was determined in Ex parte King, 1 Ves. 513, &c. 20 EX PAETE BRYANT 1 MADD. 80. 27, 6s. 9d., and payment demanded by Bryant of the parties named in the order, but they refused payment. [50] Bryant being apprehensive that List was insolvent sent a notice, dated the 30th April 1814, to the persons directed by the order to pay the costs not to pay them to List, or to any person on his account, or otherwise settle the amount of the bill of costs, nor the amount of hia expenses, in consequence of his having a lien thereon, for the amount of his bill against List, in respect of the business done for him therein. List was a second time arrested at the suit of Bardswell, and being in custody he, on the 4th May 1814, in consideration of the Plaintiffs withdrawing the action and discharging him out of custody, and erasing his name from the bills, in respect of which he had been arrested, executed a release, to all the persons mentioned in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Candey Ltd v Russell Crumpler and Christopher Farmer (as Joint Liquidators of Peak Hotels & Resorts Ltd ((in Liquidation)))
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 January 2020
    ...of costs. 32 The justification for the lien as facilitating access to justice had been put forward over two centuries ago in Ex p Bryant (1815) 1 Madd 49. There the attorney, Bryant, sought payment from his former client's judgment debtors even though those debtors had been ordered by the c......
  • Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Supreme Court
    • 18 April 2018
    ...to use arbitration. 33 Two early cases demonstrate that access to justice lay behind the development of the principle. The first is Ex p Bryant (1815) 1 Madd 49. Vice Chancellor Plumer said: “I do not wish to relax the doctrine as to lien, for it is to the advantage of clients, as well as s......
  • Corney v Brien
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • Invalid date
  • Shaw v Neale
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • 23 March 1855
    ...client ; Pope v. Wood (2 Anstr. 577), Gifford v. Gifford (Forrest, 109) ; nor, a fortiori, by a mortgage with notice. In Er party Bryant (1 Maddock, 49) the Court had, in the first instance, ordered costs to be paid by the adverse party to the client, but the latter being insolvent, they we......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
    • Australia
    • Melbourne University Law Review Vol. 42 Nbr. 3, August 2019
    • 1 April 2019
    ...Churchill (1887) 35 Ch D 489, 491. (73) Read (n 69) 596. (74) Ibid. (75) Firth (n 68) 464-5 [35] (Campbell J). (76) See Ex parte Bryant (1815) 1 Madd 49; 56 ER 19, 20 (Plumer (77) Gavin Edmondson Solicitors (n 66) 2056 [1]; see also at 2065 [33]-[34] (Lord Briggs JSC, Baroness Hale PSC, Lor......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT