Martin against Francis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1819 |
| Date | 01 January 1819 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 413
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[402] martin against francis. 1819. The plaintiff's attorney directed the sheriffs officer, who had arrested the defendant, not to let him go at large without an express consent from him, the attorney, as he had a lien for his costs. The sheriff's officer did, by the authority of the plaintiff in the action, but without that of the attorney, let the defendant go at large: Held that the sheriff was not liable to the attorney for his costs. In this case the defendant was arrested for 1401. The plaintiff's attorney had given directions to the sheriff's officer not to discharge the defendant under any authority from the plaintiff, without the consent of the attorney, he stating that he had a lien for his costs. The officer promised that he would not discharge the defendant without such consent; notwithstanding which he did discharge him by the authority of the plaintiff in the cause. A rule nisi had been obtained by Chitty, calling upon the sheriff to pay to the plaintiff's attorney 71. 10s., the costs of the action and also the costs of this application. Holt now shewed cause. This is a novel application, to compel the sheriff to pay the costs of the plaintiff's attorney, and if it succeed, the effect of it will be, to extend the lien of the attorney to the person of the defendant. The ease of Withers v, Hensley.(Cro, Jac. 379), is however an authority to shew, that the sheriff was not only justified,, but that he was actually bound to discharge the defendant at the command of the plaintiff; and if so, there is no pretence for this application. Chitty, contra. In Welch v. Hole (1 Dougl. 238), Lord Mansfield said, that if an attorney gave notice to the defendant not to pay the debt till his bill should be discharged, the payment even by the defendant, after such notice, [403] would be a payment in his own wrong; and if a payment, even by the defendant himself, could not be supported, the attorney is not to be deprived of his lien by the defendant paying his debt; he ought not to be deprived of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marr against Smith
...Here the judgment has been satisfied, and upon that ground the defendant applies to be discharged. The case of Martin v. Francis (2 B. & A. 402), is a strong case for the defendant. There, the plaintiff's attorney bad ordered the sheriff not to discharge the defendant, stating, that he had ......