Nicholas, Gent., one, Company against Hayter
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 24 November 1834 |
| Date | 24 November 1834 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 111 E.R. 135
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
[348] nicholas, gent., one, &c. against hayter. Monday, Nov. 24th, 1834. An attorney, employed to transfer stock, found that a distringaa had been entered at the bank to prevent the transfer. He thereupon made several inquiries respecting the transactions, on behalf of his client, and prepared a notice to the solicitor of the bank, to file a bill in consequence of the writ being entered : Held, that his charges for this business were not taxable items, between him and his client, it not appearing that the distringas originated in any suit, or that the business had reference to any proceeding in a Court. Per Patteson J., if the distringas had been in a suit, the steps taken by the plaintiff did not form taxable items. Charges for inquiries made, and attendances in the course of such inquiries, relating to a suit of which another attorney had the management, and in which, after such inquiries, the attorney making them did not further interfere, are not taxable items. On motion for costs under 43 G. 3, c. 46, s. 3, though the defendant need not prove malice, the burden of proving want of probable cause lies upon him ; but it is sufficient if he establishes a prima facie case which is not satisfactorily answered. Asaumpsit for work and labour, money lent, &c. At the trial before Patteson J. at the last Summer Assizes for Cornwall, it appeared that the plaintiff, an attorney, had made a journey to London, by the desire and on the business, as he alleged, of the defendant, and had there transacted certain business on his behalf, respecting a transfer of money which the defendant had in the funds. The plaintiff, according to the case which he endeavoured to prove, had prepared and taken to London a power of attorney for the transfer, but found, on his arrival there, that the bank would not transfer unless the power were prepared by themselves; whereupon he procured a power from the bank, and sent it to the defendant for his signature. The rest of the business, so far as it is material, is stated in the following items, forming part of the plaintiff's particulars of demand :- " 1834, March.-Calling at the Bank of England with Mr. Whitmore, when we found that a distringas was entered against your drawing out the money.-Calling on the solicitor of the Bank of England to know who it was that filed the distringas, when he informed us it was your brother, Mr. G. H.-Letter to you informing you thereof.-Paid postage of the same.-Paid postage of [349] your answer with instructions to give notice to the bank for them to file a bill within a week, otherwise to adopt such steps as I should think proper, and with instructions to proceed against your brother for false imprisonment,-Drawing notice to deliver to the solicitor of the bank.-18th. Attending you on my return from London; reading my agent's letter with your brother's remarks, when you informed me that the action commenced was for money given you by your uncle, and not for false imprisonment.-Attending on Messrs. Treaidder and Co. respecting the action they had commenced against your brother for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willding against Temperley
...this case that the account delivered under the Act discloses the truth, and shews that there has (b) 6 Bing. 280. See Nicholas v. Hayter, 2 A. & E. 348, 354. (e) I Cro. & M. 532; S. C. 3 Tyr. 586, where the Court is said to have cited Donl&n v, Brett, 10 B. & C. 117, as over-ruling the doct......