Mander, Gent. One, &
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1845 |
| Date | 31 January 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 327
QUEEN'S BENCH
in the matter of mander, gent., one, &c. Friday, January 31st, 1845, An outlaw cannot, for his own benefit, move to have an attorney's bill taxed. So held, where the outlaw was administrator, with the will annexed, by which all the personal estate was bequeathed to him, subject to payment of the debts, &c., and one of the bills which be sought to tax related to business done for himself and the testatrix jointly, and the other to business done for the testatrix alone. A rule was obtained in this term, calling upon James Mander to shew cause why his bills of costs, &c. in all causes and matters wherein he had been concerned for the late Right Hon. Louisa Countess of Mansfield and the Hon. Robert Fulke Greville, respectively delivered to Messrs. Beavan & Anderson as his (Mr. Greville's) attorneys and on bis behalf, and as administrator to the said countess, pursuant to certain orders of Mr. Justice Erskine, should not be referred to one of the Masters to be taxed, the said Hon. R. F. G., as administrator as aforesaid, undertaking to pay what, upon such taxation, may appear to be due, &c.: and why, on [868] payment by the said Hou. E. F. G-., as administrator as aforesaid, of what, if any thing, should appear due to Mander, he should not deliver up to the said Hon. B, F. G., or his attorneys, all deeds, books, papers, &e., iu his possession, &c., belonging to the said late Right Hon. L. Countess of M., or the said Hon. R. F. G. respectively. Two orders had been made by Erskine J. (March 27th and 30th, 1844), the first requiring Mander to deliver his bill of costs in all causes and matters wherein he had been concerned for the Hon. R. F. Greville, and, on payment of what should appear due, to deliver up all deeds, &c. belonging to Mr. Greville : the second to a like effect as to Mander's bill of costs in causes, &c., wherein he had been concerned for the late Countess of Mansfield. Both orders were made on the application of Mr. Greville ; the latter in the character of administrator, with the will annexed, of the late countess, his mother. Mander accordingly delivered two bills in May 1844. The first was headed " Dr. the Countess of Mansfield and the Hon. R. F. Greville in account with J. Mander," and stated a balance in Mander's favour of 30801: the second was (a) See Doe dem. Dames v. Davies, I Q. B. 430 ; and stat. 7 W. 4 & 1 Viet, c 26, s. 30, 31. 328 IN...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chetty v Law Society, Transvaal
...seeking relief to set aside his outlawry, but is free in access to the court in defending suits against him. Thus, in the matter of Lander 6 QB 867 Lord DENMAN CJ held that a party outlawed could not bring I proceedings but "if an action were brought against him the case would be different"......
-
Chetty v Law Society, Transvaal
...which have been set in motion against him. In support of this contention reference is made to the dictum of Lord DENMAN CJ in In re Mander 6 QB 867 to the effect that a party outlawed could not bring proceedings but H "if an action were brought against him the case would be different". I do......
-
Chetty v Law Society, Transvaal
...which have been set in motion against him. In support of this contention reference is made to the dictum of Lord DENMAN CJ in In re Mander 6 QB 867 to the effect that a party outlawed could not bring proceedings but H "if an action were brought against him the case would be different". I do......
-
Fraind v Nothmann
...maxim applicable to outlaws is: "Let them be answerable to all and none to them." See also Davis v Trevannion (14 LJ QB 138); In re Mander (6 QB 867); and Alridge v Buller (6 LJ Exch 151).' C In the Chetty case O'Donovan referred to the In re Mander case referred to by De Waal J, where Lord......