Ex parte Shaw
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 August 1821 |
| Date | 31 August 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 37 E.R. 853
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Ex parts shaw. Aug. 30, 31, 1821. 1 Glyn & Jameson, 124.-Whether the proceedings under a commission of bankrupt that has been superseded are subject to the solicitor's lien. Qu. After a commission of bankrupt ha.s been superseded, the Great Heal has power over thu proceedings for the purpose of safe custody, and sometimes orders them to bt) deposited in the bankrupt office. A commission of bankrupt, which had issued against Howard and Gibbs, was superseded on the petition of the assignees : a new commission was immediately taken out by Shaw, one of the assignees, which had proceeded to the adjudication of bankruptcy. Shaw now petitioned, praying that the solicitor under the late commission, in whose hands the proceedings were, might deliver them up to the present solicitor. The commissioners certified that it would be materially conducive to the interests of the creditors to have these proceedings delivered up. It appeared that the bill of the solicitor of the late assignees had not been paid. Mr. Treslove in support of the petition, stated that it was considered to be of great importance to have the possession of the proceedings, in order to check the [271] proofs tendered under the new commission. To have them remain in the custody of the late solicitors, to be produced at the meetings, would lead to much inconvenience and expence. Mr. Cullen and Mr. Montagu for two of the assignees and the solicitor under the late commission, opposed the application. The first question is, whether after the commission has been superseded, the Court has any jurisdiction over the proceedings. But independently of that question, the solicitor has a right to retain them till his bill of costs is paid, more particularly when the petitioner is one of the assignees from whom it is due. While the commission is subsisting, it is true that there can be no lien on the proceedings ; but when it is superseded they lose their public nature, and are subject to the same rules that prevail with respect to any other documents placed by a client in the hands of his solicitor. They cited Ex parte Bullen (1 Rose, 134), and Furlong v. Howard (2 fich. & Lef. 115). Mr. Treslove in reply, contended that the proceedings were public documents, and incapable of becoming the subject of private property or of lien. The jurisdiction is proved by the Court being in the habit of transferring the proofs ; if it can interfere...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liddell v Norton
...cited Palmer v. Wright (10 Beav. 234). the vice-chancellor sir W. page wood said that he thought no case had gone farther than Exparte Shaw (Jac. 270), in which Lord Eldon ordered a Defendant to produce documents which were in the possession of his sblicitor, who claimed a lien upon them, s......
-
Jemima Sims, Administratrix of James Sims, against Henry Thomas. Strachan, Assignee of James Sims, against The Same
...is not void, under stat. 1 G. 4, c. 119, against Strachan, who claims through the party making the assignment. Eawes v. Leader (Cro. Jac. 270. Yelv. 196), cannot be distinguished. The assignee Strachan claims, not by the direct effect of atat. 1 G. 4, c. 119, itself, but the assignment unde......
-
Hope v Liddell
...Oxford and Worcester Extension and Chester Junction Eaihvay (1 De G. & S. 7-8), Pickering v. Noyes (1 Barn. & C. 262), Ex parts, Shaw (Jacob, 270), Lvlddl v. Norton (1 Kay, App. xi.), Warburton v. Edge (9 Sim. 508). Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Amphlett, for the Respondents, referred to Brassinyto......
-
Bowes v Foster
...the plaintiff was estopped. But under that statute fraudulent gifts are only void as against purchaseis and creditors: Hawes v. Leadet (Cro. Jac. 270). An assignment of goods in fraud of cieditors is valid as between parties to the deed, and as between either party and a stranger. Bessey v.......