Hulls against Lea
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 July 1847 |
| Date | 07 July 1847 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 356
QUEENS BENCH
[940] hulls against lea. Wednesday, July 7th, 1847. An attorney admitted in one of the Superior Courts may (since stat. 6 & 7 Viet. c. 73), maintain an action for his costs in proceedings carried on in another Court in which be is not admitted, in the name of attorneys of the latter. Debt for work and labour as an attorney : counts for money paid and lent, and on an account stated. Plea, that the action was commenced after the passing of stat. 6 & 7 Viet. e. 73, and that the same is now maintained by plaintiff against defendant for the recovery of certain fees, charges and disbursements claimed by plaintiff to be due to him from defendant for and on account of the prosecuting and defending by plaintiff for defendant of certain actions in the Court of Exchequer at Westminster, the prescribed interval between two successive calls had not elapsed, or that calls amounting to more than the sum prescribed for the total amount of calls in one year had been made within that period." (a) Reported by H. Merivale, Esq. 10 Q. B. Bit HULLS V. LEA 357 and iu no other Court, in the name of certain other persons, to wit, Messrs. Nicholls and Doyle, and Henry Duncalfe Eushbury, then duly admitted arid entitled to act and practice as attorneys of the said Court, as agents of the plaintiff in that behalf; and for no other eause or consideration whatsoever. That the said actions were prosecuted and defended as aforesaid after the passing of the said Act of Parliament: and that tha plaintiff himself was not plaintiff or defendant in any of such actions: and that plaintiff, although he was, at the time of prosecuting and defending the said action, duly admitted, according to the laws in force before the passing of the said statute, as an attorney in aud of the Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas, was not admitted in the said Court of Exchequer, Verification. General demurrer. Ground of demurrer, that the plaintiff, being an attorney of the Queen's Bench, and having conducted defendant's business in the names of [941] attorneys of the Exchequer as his agents, is entitled to recover in the present action. Joinder. The caae was argued in this vacation (a) by Hayes for the plaintiff, and Dowling Serjt. contra, Goodner v. Cover (3 Dowl. P. C. 424), Jones \. Jones (2 M. & W. 323), Laffiam v. Hyde (1 C. & M. 128; 3 Tyrwhitt, 143), Meddirwcroft v. Holbrooke (1 H. Bl. 50), Vincent v. Holt (4 Taunt...
To continue reading
Request your trial