Hyde v Latham
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 343
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 3 Tyr. 143; 1 Dowl. P. C. 594; 2 L. J. Ex. 72.
1C. & M. 1S9. LATHAM V. HYUE 343 latham v. hydk. hydk v. latham. Exch. of Pleas.-1832. An attorney of another Court, who conducts an action in the Exchequer in his own name, can bring no action for his fees, and has no lien for such fees; and the Court will allow one judgment to be set oft' against another, without regard to his claim of a lien for such fees. [S. C. 3 Tyr. 143; 1 Dowl. P. C. 594; 2 L. J. Ex. 72.] TomliiiBon had obtained a rule to set oft' the debt and costs which had been recovered iti one of these actions against the debt and costs which had been recovered in the othar, without regard to the lien (see Rule 9;j, Hil. T. 2 W. 4) of the attorney for costs in the first action, on the ground, that such attorney was not an attorney of this Court. VVightman shewed cause, and contended that, at all events the attorney was entitled to his lien for money out of pocket. [Bayley, B. If an attorney, who ought to deliver his bill, does not do so, he cannot recover for the money out of pocket expended in the course of legal proceedings. The question is, whether, not being an attorney of the Court, he can have any lien as attorney. [129] Lord Lyndhurst, C. 13. The money paid out of pocket is only incidental to his duty as an attorney. He had no right to conduct the cause; the money was laid out in doing what the law forbids him to do (2 G-eo. 2, c. 2.'J).J Coltman and Tomlinson, contra, were stopped by the Court. lord lyndhurst, C. B. We are of opinion that this rule ought to be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hulls against Lea
...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. 452), Attorney General v. Malin (2 Cro. & J. 500, 2 Tyrwb.......
-
Jones v Jones
...was indorsed on the writ, and in the affidavit of increase he describes himself as the plaintiff's attorney. The case of Latham v. Hyde (1 C. & M. 128) shews that an attorney of another court, who conducts an action in this Court in his own name, can bring no action for his fees. The consen......