Herring v Clobery
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 1842 |
| Date | 12 February 1842 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 41 E.R. 565
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 149; Minet v. Morgan, 1873, L. R. 8 Ch. 367; Wheeler v. Le Marchant, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 678.
herring v. clobery. Feb. 11, 12, 1842. [S. C. 11 L. J. Ch. 149; Minet v. Morgan, 1873, L. E. 8 Ch. 367; fHieehr v. Le Mardiant, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 678.] Whore an attorney is employed by a client professionally, to transact professional business, all the communications which pass between them in the course, and for 566 HBERING V. CLOSERY 1 PH. 92. the purpose of that business, ancl not those only which relate to litigation commenced or in contemplation, are privileged communications. By a memorandum of agreement, dated the 7th of February 1826, and made between Elizabeth Herring, widow, of the one part, and John Herring Clobery, her eldest sen, of the other part, it was agreed that in consideration of a certain sum of money to be paid by J. H. Clobery to or on account of Elizabeth Herring, the family estates, of which Elizabeth Herring was then tenant for life, with remainder to J. H. Clobery, as to part, in tail, and as to the vest, in fee, should be resettled to the use of J. H. Clobery for life, with remainder to his first and other sons in tail, with remainder to his daughters in tail, with certain remainders over to the younger son and only daughter of Elizabeth Herring and their respective children. A recovery was accordingly suffered ; but the deed by which the uses of the recovery were declared, and which bore date the llth of April 1826, varied in several particulars from the terms of the agreement as contained in the memorandum. In the year 1837 the bill in this cause was filed by Elizabeth Herring and her younger son and his only daughter, whose interests under the memorandum [92] were prejudiced by the variations, against J. H. Clobery and other parties ; alleging that Elizabeth Herring had executed the deed under the impression that it was framed in conformity with the terms of the memorandum, and that the Plaintiffs had only recently discovered the contrary, and praying, therefore, that the deed might be rectified and made conformable to the agreement as contained in the memorandum. The defence set up to the bill was that the terms of the agreement had been altered previously to the execution of the deed, with the knowledge and consent of both the contracting parties; and that the deed, as it stood, was in conformity with the agreement as so altered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 9)
...Corporation (1833) 1 My & K 88 at 94-5, per Lord Brougham LC and Holmes v Baddeley (1844) 1 Ph 476 at 480-1, per Lord Lyndhurst LC. In Herring v Clobery (1842) 1 Ph 91 Lord Lyndhurst L C followed the rule laid down in Greenough v Gaskell in preference to a narrower rule confined to litigati......
-
Chant v Brown
...the Plaintiffs, opposed the motion. In support of the motion to suppress the depositions the following cases were cited: Herring v. Clobery (1 Ph. 91), Jones v. Pugh (1 Id. 96), Carpmael v. Powis (Id. (1) See Chant v. Brmm, 7 Hare, 79. 9 HARE, 793. CHANT V. BROWN 737 687), Beece v. Trye (9 ......
-
Russell v Jackson
...Ph. 96), Beer v. Ward (Jac. 77, 82), Cholmondeley v. Clinton (19 Ves. 261), Flight v. Bobin-\3Q$\-son (8 Beav.,22), Herring v. Globery (1 Ph. 91), Wheatky v. Williams (1 M. & W. 533), Doe v. Harris (5 Car.. & Pay. 592), Bex v. Withers (2 Camp. 578), Turquand.v. Knight (2 M. & W, 98); Taylor......
-
Nicholl v Jones
...riot be then compellable to produce: Taylor on Evidence (s. 858); the protection is not, however, so great in equity: Herring v. Clobury (1 Ph. 91). [591] Mr. Freeling, for the Defendant, Eliza Jones. There is this preliminary objection, that this application is wrong, if production is what......