Hollis v Claridge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 May 1813 |
| Date | 12 May 1813 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 128 E.R. 549
Common Pleas Division
Applied, Wakefiled v. Newbon, 1844, 6 Q. B. 280.
CHAMBRE J, The object of the act was that the bill might he capable of being taxed, there is tio difficulty in taxing the bill. GIBBS J. To say that this business is not described in the bill, because Trinity vacation is written instead of Hilary vacation, would be trifling with the Court. Rule discharged. [807] HOLUB v. CLARIDGE. May 12, 1813. [Applied, Wak,efield v. Newbon, 1844, 6 Q. B. 280.] The lien which an attorney has on the papers in his hands, is only connneneurate with the right which the party delivering the papers to him, has therein.--Every one, whether attorney or not, has by the common law a lien on the specific deed or paper delivered to him to do any work or business thereon, but not on other muniments of the same party, unless the person claiming the lien be an atturney or solicitor. This was an action of trover for title deeds. Upon the trial of the cause at the sittings after Trinity term 1812, before Mansfield C. J., it appeared that the Plaintiff, being under embarrassments, applied to Basson to grant him an annuity, who consented so to do, provided he were satisfied with the security proposed, whereupon the Plaintiff delivered to Basson a building lease granted to him of certain premises, that he might examine the title ; and Basson, without the assent or knowledge of the Plaintiff, who had another solicitor concerned on his part, delivered the deeds for investigation on the part of Beeson to the Defendant, who had obtained a certificate as a conveyancer, but had not been admitted as an attorney, and was then employed as clerk to a solicitor. It had been agreed that if the annuity should be granted, the expences of preparing the securities should be borne by the grantor. The Defendant having heard some report disadvantageous to the character of the Plaintiff, upon that ground, and not upon any defect of the title, advised Beason to reject the proposal, which he accordingly did, and the Plaintiff, by Basson's direction, drew out and delivered to the Plaintiff a bill of his charges for investigating the title, and detained the deeds until he should be paid those charges by the Plaintiff, contending that he bad a lien for them. Mansfield C. J. was of opinion, upon this evidence, that as the Plaintiff was to pay all the expences if the business was completed, and as it was in evidence that the annuity...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dmitrii Vladimirovich Sheianov v Sarner International Ltd
...it until his charge is paid. The lien applies only to the chattel produced or on which the work is done.” 57 In Hollis v Claridge (1813) 4 Taunt 807, 128 ER 549, the Plaintiff delivered to a potential lender a building lease “that he might examine the title” with a view to security. The len......
- Fisher v Automobile Finance Company of Australia Ltd
-
Pater v Baker
...Hole, 1 Dougl. 238; Griffin v. Eyles, 1 H. Bla. 122; Mitchell v. Oldfield, 4 T. R. 123; Read v. Dupper, 6 T. R. 361; Hollis v. Olaridge, 4 Taunt. 807; C'owell v. Betteley, 10 Bingh. 432, 4 M. & Scott, 265, 2 Dowl. P. C. 780; W&rrall v. Johnson, 2 Jac. & W. 218; Colegrave v. Manley, 1 Turn. ......
- Thompson and Another v Castellain and Others