Ex parte Hughes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1822 |
| Date | 31 January 1822 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 1267
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[482] Ex parts hughes. Thursday, January 31st, 1822. Where an attorney, in order to get possession of papers belonging to A. B., in the hands of A. B.'s former attorney, who had a lien upon them for the amount of his bill then in dispute, undertook that A. B. should enter into an unqualified reference, not revocable, &c.: Held, that A. (B. having become subsequently bankrupt for the second time, and without paying 15s. in the pound, the proof of the debt under the commission was not an election by the former attorney under 49 G. 3, c. 121, s. 14, so as to dispense with the reference, and that the attorney was liable, pursuant to his undertaking, to procure A. B.'s signature to an agreement of reference, and to find security for the performance of the award to the satisfaction of the Master. Scarlett, in Easter term, 1820, obtained a rule nisi, calling on John Garnett, an attorney of this Court, to shew cause why he should not name an arbitrator, and procure Hugh Emett, his client, to execute an agreement of reference, and find security to the satisfaction of the Master for Emett's performing the award. It appeared that Emett had been in trade in partnership at Liverpool, and being indebted to Hughes, who had formerly been his attorney, for professional business done by him, and there being a dispute as to the amount, a reference between them was proposed. At that time, Hughes having papers belonging to Emett in his hands, of which Garnett, who was then Emett's attorney, wanted to get possession, the latter undertook in writing, that Emett should enter into an unqualified reference, as to the matter in dispute between him and Hughes, which reference was not to be revocable by Emett, provided Hughes would give up the papers. This was accordingly done. On shewing cause, the affidavits were ultimately referred to the Master, who reported as follows: "I find that Mr. Garnett is liable under the guarantee given to Mr. Hughes, and I direct that Mr. Garnett shall, before the first day of February next, procure Mr. Emett to execute the agreement of reference as heretofore prepared, or execute the same as the attorney of Mr. Emett, and shall also, before the said first day of February next, find security to my satisfaction for performance by the said Emett, of the award [483] to be made in pursuance thereof, unless the Court shall be of opinion, that Mr. Garnett is discharged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kanat Shaikhanovich Assaubayev and Others (Claimants v Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd (Defendant
...to an action at law (e.g. the Statute of Frauds), precludes the court from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction: see Ex parte Hughes, 5 B. & Ald. 482; In re Greaves (1827) 1 Cr. & J. 374. However, these are factors which the court may take into account in deciding whether or not to exerc......
-
Udall v Capri Lighting Ltd
...secure a third party to do an act, or execute a document? This question also he answered in the affirmative, in reliance on the case of Ex Parte Hughes (1822) 5 B. and Ald. 482 and the Canadian case of Re Solicitors (1916) 32 Dominion Law Reports 387; 11 W.W.R. 529. (3) Was the undertaking ......
- Frauenfelder v Reid
-
Watkins v Flanagan
...though he may have received a dividend, does not preclude him from resorting also to the surety. Martin v. Brecknell. Ex parte Deives (5 B. & A. 482). Smitten v. Soutten (ibid. 882). Meade v. Braham (3 M. & S. 91). The creditor, indeed, has no election, but is bound to prove; and as to the ......