Nicholls v Wilson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1843 |
| Date | 26 January 1843 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 734
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 2 Dowl. (N. S.) 1031; 12 L. J. Ex. 266. Referred to, Whitehead v. Lord, 1852, 7 Ex. 693.
[106] nicholls v. wilson. Exch. of Pleas. Jan. 2(i, 1843.-An attorney is not entitled to recover his bill of costs for conducting an action which he has not terminated, but which has been discontinued, unless he shews satisfactory reasons for not proceeding with it, and gives his client reasonable notice thereof. [S. C. 2 Dowl. (N. 8.) 1031; 12 L. J. Ex. 26fi. Referred to, Whitehead v. Lord, 1852, 7 Ex. 693.] This was an action of debt, to recover the sum of 101. 12s. 7d., the amount of an attorney's bill for work and labour done in a cause of Wilson v. Smith. UMifcW. 107. PEARSON V. ARCHBOLD 735 The defendant pleaded nunquam indebitatus. At the trial before the undersheriff of Warwickshire, at Birmingham, on the 18th instant, the plaintiff proved his retainer, the work done, and the delivery of a signed bill one month before action brought. The defendant called a witness, who proved that the action against Smith had been discontinued by the plaintiff', who, in answer to a. question put to him by the witness in the defendant's presence, as to why he had commenced the action and afterwards discontinued it, stated, that " he found there were difficulties in the road which induced him not to go on." On this evidence the case; went to the jury, the undersheriff' observing, that the attorney had no right to sto{j suddenly short in an action, without giving reasonable notice to his client to furnish him with money, and that as the action had not proceeded to a legal termination, he thought the plaintiff was not entitled to recover. The jury having found for the defendant, Montagu Chambers now moved for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and of the verdict being against the evidence. The undersheriff left fche case improperly to the jury. An attorney is not bound to prosecute to a final end every suit he commences. If he has sufficient and reasonable cause for doing so, he may relinquish it without disentitling himself to costs for the period during which he conducted it. That was decided in F'an^andau v. Browne (9 Bing. 403; 2 M. & Scott, 543). In Wadswoi'th v. Marshall (2 Cr. & J. 665), it was held that [107] if an attorney has reasonable and probable cause for commencing an action, and desists from prosecuting it because he afterwards discovers that it cannot be proceeded...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips against Broadley
...to this contract; but it cannot be put an end to without notice;" and this rule, as a general one, was recognized in Nieholls v. Wilson (11 M. & W. 106). The evidence here shews no contract on the part of Campbell & Phillips, continuing from January 3d to January 20th, 1848. When Hutton had......
-
Vaughan v Walker
...VAUGHAN and WALKER. Whitehead v. Lord 7 Ex. Rep. 691. Nicholls v. WilsonENR 11 M. & w. 106. Norton v. TurvilleENR 2 P. Wms. 144. Owens v. DickensonENR Cr. & Ph. 48. Murrary v. Barlee 3 M. & K. 209. Norton v. TurvilleENR 2 P. Wms 144. Murray v. Barlee 3 M. & K. 209. Hulme v. TennantENR 1 Bro......
-
Coppinger v Synott
...and SYNOTT. Rowson v. Earl M. & Mal. 538. Vansandan v. BrownENR 9 Bing. 402. Harris v. OsborneENR 2 Cr. & M. 629. Nicholls v. WilsonENR 11 M. & W. 106. Whitehead v. LordENR 7 Ex. 691. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 563 MOORE, J. I entertain great doubts whether the points were properly raised on the p......