Gainsford v Grammar
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 1809 |
| Date | 16 February 1809 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 170 E.R. 1063
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
[9] Adjourned Sittings at Westminster. Thursday, Feb 16, 1809. gainsford v. grammar (A. having a demand upon B , B. before A commences any action, employs C. his attorney, to make certain propositions to A upon the matters in difference between them. C. cannot be examined as to what B. said upon the occasion, for this is to be considered a privileged communication between attorney arid client. But what C. said when he made the propositions to A is good evidence against B. without further proof of C. being authorised by him than the fact of C. being his attorney.) Goods sold and delivered Pleas, the general issue, and the Statute of Limitations. The goods had been delivered seven or eight years ago To take the case out of the statute, Mr. Walls, the defendant's attorney, was called, who stated, that about a year and a half ago he carried certain propositions from the defendant to the plaintiff; there was not then, nor for several months after, any suit depending between the parties ; but he then considered himself as acting in the capacity of attorney for the defendant, and he had since charged for his attendances as such -Q. " What was the nature of the propositions you made to the plaintiff, by order of the defendant ? Park objected, that whatever the witness might have been instructed by the defendant to propose to the plaintiff on this occasion was a privileged communication between attorney and client. Garrow, contra, cited Cobden v. Kendrtck, 4 T. R. 431, and Wilson v. Rastall, ib. 753, to shew, that unless the wit-[10]-ness was really acting as attorney to the party at the time, he was bound to disclose what passed between them ; and contended, that Mr Walls was not employed on this occasion in his professional capacity, but was merely in the situation of a steward, or any other confidential agent, whose testimony was not privileged. * A bank-note, though stolen, becomes the property of him who gives a valuable consideration for it. having no notice nor knowledge of the robbery Miller v. Race, 1 Burr. 452. So although the loser of a bill advertises it in the newspapers, the person who afterwards bona fide discounts it for the fraudulent finder, may recover upon it against the acceptor. Lawson v. Weston, 4 Esp. 56 -As to the peculiar nature of the property in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William Petch and Mary his Wife, against Jane Lyon
...In this term (a). Bliss and Pashley shewed cause. First, the admission by the plaintiffs' attorney was evidence. In Gainsford v. Grammar (2 Campb. 9), the fact that a party was the attorney of the defendant was held to render his declarations respecting the subject of the action, made at th......
-
Lawrence v Campbell
...Jeferyes (13 Jur. 465); Beadmv. King (Ib. 550); Jfbore v. rm^ (4 B. & Ad. 876); Pea-rse v. Peara* (a De G. & Sm. 25); Gainsfwd v. Grammar (2 Camp. 9). [489] the vice-chancellor [Sir E. T, Kindersley}/ ftim of opinion,that the Defendants are entitled to the privilege they claim and to refute......
-
Parkhurst v Lowten
...o Burr. 1687. Hloman v. Herne, 2 Esp. 695. Brad v. Acker/nan 2 SWANS. 222. PARKHURRT V. LOWTEN 59f) 5 Esp. 120. Gainsford v. Grammar, '2 Campb. 9. Stratford v. Hagan, 2 Ball & . 164. Cromack v. Heathcote, 2 firod. # .Bint?. 4 ; and the privilege has been extended to an interpreter as " the ......
-
Greenough v Gaskell
...did, no man could hereafter employ him, and that a maa shall not be wonncled through the side of his scrivener. In Gain-iford v. Grammar (2 Campb., 9), Lord Ellenborough would not allow an attorney to be examined touching a proposal which he had carried from his client to the Plaintiff, tho......