Harris and Another, Executors of Thomas Wilson, Deceased v Osbourn
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Date | 01 January 1834 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 912
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 4 Tyr. 445; 3 L. J. Ex. 182. Approved, Nicholls v. Wilson, 1843, 11 M. & W. 106; 2 D. (N. S.) 1031. Followed, Whitehead v. Lord, 1852, 7 Ex. 691. Discussed, In re Hall and Barker, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 544; Underwood v. Lewis, [1894] 2 Q. B. 311. Referred to, Retledge v. Rutledge, 1840, 2 In. Eq. R. 295; Harris v. Quine, 1869, L. R. 4 Q. B. 658; 10 B. & S. 644; In re Romer and Haslam, [1893] 2 Q. B. 298.
912 HARRIS V. OSBOURN 2 C. & M. 629. [629] harris and another, Executors of Thomas Wilson, Deceased v. ohbourn. Exch. of Fleas. 1834.-Where a client employs an attorney to conduct a suit, ifc is an entire contract to carry on the suit to its termination, and determinate by the attorney only on reasonable notice; and where no such notice has been given, the statute of limitations is no bar to that part of the demand which is for business done more than six years before the commencement of an action by the attorney for business done in the suit, which was not brought to a termination till within six years of the commencement of the action. [S. C. 4 Tyr. 445; 3 L. J. Ex. 182. Approved, Nicholls v. IVilstm, 1843, 11 M. & W. 106 ; 2 D. (N. S.) 1031. Followed, Whitehead v. Lord, 1852, 7 Ex. 691. Discussed, In re Hall and Barker, 1878, 9 Ch. D. 544 ; Underwood v. Lew-is, [1894] 2 Q. B. 311. Referred to, Rulledge v. Rutleilge, 1840, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 295; Harm v. Quiiie, 18G9, L. R. 4 Q. B. 658; 10 B. & S. 644 ; In re Earner and Haxlam, [1893] 2 Q. B. 298.] This waa an action of debt brought by the plaintiff's, as executors of one Thomas Wilson, deceased, (who was an attorney), to recover the sum of 1541. 17s. 6d., the amount of the testator's bill for business done by the testator for the defendant as his attorney. The defendant pleaded the general issue and the Statute of Limitations, od which pleas issues were joined. The particulars of the plaintiffs' demand had been delivered to the defendant under a Judge's order; and it was agreed between the plaintiffs and defendant that this should form a part of this case, and might be referred to by either the plaintiffs or defendant. Under the power given by the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42j s. 25, the plaintiffs and defendant agreed upon the following case for the opinion of the Court:-The business charged for in the particulars of the plaintiffs' demand was done by the testator for the defendant according...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodsden against Harridge
...the statute begins to run, 1 B. & Ad. 15, Rothery v. Mwinings. 2 B. & Ad. 431, Helps v. Winterbottom. Ibid. 447, Richards v. flichards. 2 Cr. & M. 629, Harris v. Osbourn. 1 Cr. M. & R. 245, Emery v. Day. 2 A. & E. 758, Holl v. Hadley. 3 A. & E. 106, Philpott v. Kelley. 4 Nev. & M. 611, S. C......
-
Arnold v The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Poole
...by giving a regular notice of his intention not to continue to act as attorney. That principle is laid down in Harris v. Osbourn (2 C. & M. 629, 4 Tyrwh. 445), and indeed in the cases cited upon this point on the other side. In No. 5 there was a resolution of the town council previous to th......
-
Whitehead v Lord, Administrator of Ann Lord, Deceased
...a leasonable notice, the client neglects to provide the funds, the solicitor may abandon the suit and sue for his charges //mm v OJiourn (2 Cr & M 629), Vansandau v Btoimie (9 Bing 402), and ffiUiami v Jintei,(2Q, B 276) 1 he attorney has the remedy in his own hands , for, rf he requires fu......
-
Nicholls v Wilson
...any notice. In this case, however, I see no reason for granting a rule. parke, B. The rule is correctly laid down in Harris v. Oxbowx, (2 C. & M. 629), where Lord Lyndhurst said, "I consider that when an attorney's retained to prosecute or defend a cause, he enters into a special contract t......