Hargrave v Hargrave
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 November 1850 |
| Date | 10 November 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 1117
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 19 L. J. Ch. 261; 14 Jur. 212.
[408] hargrave v. hargrave. Jan. 21, 31, Feb. 7, 1850. [S. C. 19 L. J. Ch. 261; 14 Jur. 212.] Upon the trial of au issue between an infant and an adult, terms of compromise were signed by their counsel, and the cause was withdrawn. The agreement, though such as the Court would have sanctioned, was not binding on the infant. The adult afterwards refused to be bound by the arrangement. A new trial was directed, and the adult party was ordered to pay so much of the costs of the issue as had been rendered fruitles.-i, and could not be rendered available on the subsequent trial. On the trial of an issue, the common law counsel entered into an arrangement as to all the matters in dispute in the cause. Held, that the matters were not so distinct as to be beyond his authority. The question in this cause depended upon the legitimacy of the Plaintiff (an infant), and an issue having been directed, the jury, on the 10th of February 1846, found in favour of the Plaintiff. (8 Beav. 289, and 9 Beavan, 153, 549, 552.) A second trial was afterwards directed, upon which the jury, on the 22d of June 1848, found for the Defendant. A third issue was then directed, which came on for trial on the 19th of June 1849, on which occasion the counsel for the Plaintiff and Defendant signed the following agreement:-" The entire estate to be equally divided between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Each party to bear all his own costs. The Defendant to retain all rents received by or for him prior to the appointment of the receiver. The fund in the Court of Chancery and in the hands of the receiver to be equally divided between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Rule of this Court, if necessary, to be drawn up for enforcing these terms. Order of the Court of Chancery, if necessary." Upon this, each party withdrew a juror, and the trial was not proceeded with. The Defendant was at first willing to carry the compromise into effect, but he afterwards refused so to do. A petition was now presented by the Plaintiff, praying that if the Defendant elected to confirm and carry [409] out the compromise, a proper instrument might be executed ; but if he did not, then that the issue might be triecl, and that the Defendant might be ordered to pay to the Plaintiff his costs of preparation for the trial, on the 19th of June 1849, and consequent thereon, and of this application. The Plaintiff being still an infant, it was admitted that the agreement was not binding on him. Mr. Turner and Mr. Kyle, in support of the petition, admitted that the Court would not direct a specific performance which was not asked by the petition, and argued as follows :-A party is bound by the consent of his counsel given in Court, In Hobler (8 Beavan, 101), and a memorandum signed by such counsel is binding on the client; Porter v. Cooper (1 Cr. M. & R. 387); though he had no iustructions to consent; Furnival v. Bogle (4 Russ. 142). The denial of the client of any authority is insufficient to prevent the consent taking effect; Filmer v. De.lber (3 Taunt. 486), for it is for counsel to consider whether he is authorised to consent. If he doea, the Court will act on such consent, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patience Swinfen v Frederick Hay Swinfen
...defendant's assent at sessions, was upheld in Porter v. Cooper, 1 C. M. & E. 387, 4 Tyrwh. 456. Lord Lang-dale, in Hargrave v. Hargrave, 12 Beavan, 408, refused to enforce an arrangement very similar to the present. In Furnival v. Bogle, 4 Russ. 142, it is assumed that the client would not ......
- Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd v Government of Ceylon
-
Nicolaos Tsangaris; Sevasti Tsangaris; Emmanuel Gerakios and Garyfalia Gerakios v Gaymark Investments Pty. Ltd
...Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd. (1964) 2 QB 480 Gordon v Gordon (1951) IR 301 Hargrave v Hargrave (1950) 12 Beavan 408 King v Poggioli (1923) 32 CLR 222 Matthews v Munster (1887) 20 QBD 141 Mehmet v Benson (1965) 113 CLR 295 Robinson v Tyson (1888) 9 NSWR 297 ......
-
Swinfen v Lord Chelmsford
...The authority of counsel to enter into an arrangement respecting the subject matter of litigation, was conceded in Hat grave v. Haig/ave (12 Beav. 408). If a connsel is a mandatary, he is not liable if he acts according to the best of his judgment. In Story on Bailments, sect. 182, p. 203, ......