Jones v Jones
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Date | 01 January 1837 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 150 E.R. 780
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 474; M. & H. 53; 6 L. J. Ex. 88; 1 Jur. 183.
jones v. jones. Exch. of Pleas. 1837.-It is no ground for disallowing the plaintiff's attorney the costs of a cause, in which the plaintiff has recovered a verdict, that he is not on the roll of attornies of this court, if it appears that the London agent's name is indorsed on the record and proceedings, and he has-conducted all the business in court, and corresponded with the country attorney on the subject of the suit. [S. C. 5 Dowl. P. C. 474; M. & H. 53; G L. J. Ex. 88; 1 Jur. 183.] Jervis had obtained a rule to shew cause why the taxation of costs in this case should not be set aside, on the ground that the plaintiff's attorney was not an attorney of this Court during the time that the business was done, and had not the consent in writing of any attorney of this Court authorizing him to practise in his name, pursuant to 2 Geo. 2, c. 23, s. 10. The affidavit on which the rule was obtained stated that the action was commenced in the month of February 1836, by Messrs. "Weeks and Gilbertson, as the agents of Mr. H. E. Williams, who was and acted us attorney for the plaintiff in this cause from the time of the commencement thereof: thiit the said H. B. W. was admitted an attorney of this Court on the 23rd of May la$t, and not; before: that the defendant's agent attended the taxation of costs, and objected to all costs incurred before the 23d of May being allowed, on the ground that the said H. R. W. was not admitted an attorney of this Court before, and that ha the said H. E. W. was the plaintiff's attorney in the cause, and had practised therein in his own name as such attorney, and not in the name of any other attorney of this Court, with the consent in writing of such attorney, signed by such attorney; but that, notwithstanding such objection, the Master allowed the plaintiff costs from the commencement of the cause. Another affidavit also stated that the name of H, E. W. was indorsed on the copy of the writ of summons: that [324] the said H, E. W., as such plaintiff's attorney, did conduct the cause, and attended in that capacity at the trial. R. V. Eichards shewed cause on the affidavit of Mr. Gilbertson, an attorney of this Court and Mr. Williams's London agent, which stated that his name was inserted in the declaration with his consent and permission, and that his name was indorsed on the back of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hulls against Lea
...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. 452), Attorney Genera......
-
Doe d. Nanney v Gore
...from the commissioner under the inclosure act, the plaintiff could not recover on the mere title conferred by the con- 780 JONES V. JONES 2M.&W.323. veyanee, but was bound to have proved the qualification of the commissioner, and that tha notices, &c., required by the General Inolosure Act,......