Ezart v Goodill
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1842 |
| Date | 24 November 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 705
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 10. See In re Dangar's Trusts, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 187.
[686] ezart v. lister. ezart . goodill. Nov. 4, 24, 1842. [S. C. 12 L. J. Ch. 10. See In re Dangar's Trusts, 1889, 41 Ch. D. 187.] Liability of a party acting as a solicitor in a proceeding in which funds are wrongfully obtained out of Court. If a solicitor knowing that money in Court belongs to one person, presents a petition and obtains payment to another, he is personally responsible. The principle applies if he hsa merely a knowledge of circumstances which, if duly considered, would lead to a knowledge of the fact. Patty Goodill was entitled, for life, to an annuity of 20, payable out of the estates of the testator in the cause. The assets were administered in this Court, and provision was made for the payment of this annuity by setting apart a sum of 666, 6s. 8d. consols for the purpose. By the decree on further directions, in 1810, the other funds in Court were apportioned, and the residue was ordered to be paid to William Goodill, who also was entitled to the 666, 6s. 8d., subject to the life interest of Patly Goodill. It was afterwards ascertained that the Plaintiffs, the trustees, had a charge of 263 against the assets, for expenses incurred by them, and by an order made in March 1815, it was referred to the Master to tax all parties their costs; and it was ordered that 108, 4s. lid. annuities then in Court, together with a sum of 4, 7s. 9d, cash, should be applied in payment (so far as those sums would extend) of the costs; and it was declared that the sum of 263, which had been reported due to the Plaintiffs, was a charge upon the sum of 666, 13s. 4d. 3 per cent, annuities, set apart to answer Patty Goodill's [586] annuity of 20. Liberty was given to the Plaintiffs to apply on the death of Patty Goodill. No stop order was obtained by the Plaintiffs. The costs were not taxed, and the sum of 108, 4s. lid. stock and 4, 7s. 9d. cash remained in Court. Patty Goodill died in January 1842, and in May following William Goodill presented a petition, stating the proceedings in the cause up to the order of 1810, but omitting that of 1815. An order was made on that petition in May 1842, whereby the sum of 108, 4s. lid. Eeduced annuities, and a sum of 94, 14s. 9d. cash, which had arisen from the dividends thereon, and also the sum of 666, 13s. 4d., were ordered to be paid to William Goodill. Messrs. A. & B. were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v Kitchin
...implied contract, as was done by Sir Anthony Hart (1 Sim. 404). In the first place, I think the dictum of Lord Langdale, in Lee v. Head (5 Beav. 585. Lord Langdale refers to "a criminal charge," and not to a pecuniary penalty), that a man could not, on due consideration, contract that he wo......
-
Att Gen v Carbonneau
...‘Note 3. Brydges v. Branfill (1842) 12 Sim. 369; Re Dangar”s Trusts (1889) 41 Ch. D. 178 (discussing and following Ezart v. Lister (1842) 5 Beav. 585; Todd v. Studholme (1857) 3 K. & J. 324; Dixon v. Wilkinson (1859) 4 De G. & J. 508; Simmons v. Rose, Weeks v. Ward, Re Ward (1862) 31 Beav. ......
-
Tylee v Webb. Re Hinton
...the Respondent, his solicitor was responsible, and liable to make him compensation : Craig v. Watson (8 Beavan, 427), Exa/rt v. Lister (5 Beavan, 585); and, secondly, that the Court had jurisdiction to & summary proceeding : Floyd v. Nancfle (3 Atkyns, 568), In re Knight (1 Bing. 91), In re......
-
Todd v Studholme
...and consented to distribution of the funds in Court, that the mortgage debt and interest remained unpaid. They cited Ezart v. Lister (5 Beav. 585) to shew the personal liability of solicitors in the position of Messrs. Gregg; and [328] Brydgesv. Branfill (12 Sim. 369), to shew that this ext......