Ormerod against Tate
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 May 1801 |
| Date | 13 May 1801 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 102 E.R. 179
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
See Slater v. Sunderland Corporation, 1863, 33 L. J. Q. B. 38; Ross v. Buxton, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 197.
[464] ormerod against tate. Wednesday, May 13th, 1801. An attorney has a lien upon a sum awarded in favour of his client, as well as if recovered by judgment: and if after notice to the defendant the latter pay it over to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's attorney may compel a repayment of it to himself, and he will not be prejudiced by a collusive release from the plaintiff to the defendant. [See Slater v. Swnderland Corporation, 1863, 33 L. J. Q. B. 38; Boss v. Bwxtm, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 197.] This cause being at issue at York Spring Assizes 1800, the parties entered into bonds to refer it to arbitration, and the arbitrator awarded the defendant to pay to the plaintiff 261. by two installments, 101. on the 24th of May 1800, and the remaining 161. on a certain future day. On the 16th of May the, plaintiff's attorney, having been informed that the parties intended to settle the matter between themselves for the purpose of ousting him of his lien on the costs, served the defendant with notice to pay the amount of the damages and costs to him, and not to settle the same with the plaintiff or any other person, as he had a lien upon the costs for his fees, &c. notwithstanding which the defendant on demand of the first installment by the plaintiff's attorney when it became due refused to pay it to him, but paid it over to the plaintiff himself, and obtained from him a receipt in full of all demands: and then told the attorney he would never pay him a shilling, and he might get his costs how he could. Thereupon a rule was obtained on the part of the plaintiff's attorney, calling on the defendant to shew cause why he should not pay him his costs in this cause out of the money awarded to be paid by the said defendant te the plaintiff, and also the costs of this application. - Gibbs shewed cause against the rule, and contended that the attorney^ lien was confined to the cases of money recovered by the judgment of the Court, and did not extend to money awarded ; and the rule being introduced merely for the sake of the officers of the Court, in derogation of the natural rights of the parties to settle their [465]...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bott & Company Solicitors Ltd v Ryanair Dac
...instrumentality, but wider in that it does not depend upon the property being in the possession of the solicitor. (3) Arbitration 21 In Ormerod v Tate (1801) 1 East 464; 102 ER 179 the parties to a pending suit entered into bonds to refer the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator made an ......
-
Khans Solicitors (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and another
... Welsh v Hole (1779) 1 Doug. 238 ; 99 E.R.155 (Lord Mansfield) Read v Dupper (1795) 6 T.R. 361 ; 101 E.R.595 (Lord Kenyon CJ) Ormerod v Tate (1801) 1 East 463 ; 102 E.R. 179 (Lord Kenyon CJ) White v Pearce (1849) 1 Hare 276 ; 68 E.R.113 (Wigram V-C) Brunsdon v Allard (1859) 2 E......
-
Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd
...of such assignment, he shall not afterwards be suffered to avail himself of a payment to the principal in fraud of such notice.” 32 In Ormerod v Tate (1801) 1 East 464 the fruits consisted of the debt arising from an arbitration award. That appears to have been a case of collusion, because ......
-
Brundson against Allard
...client, and is entitled to have it paid over to him on shewing that the whole is due to him for his bill of costs. So, in Ormerod v. Tate (1 East, 464), it was decided that an attorney has a lien upon a sum awarded in favour of his client, aa well as if it had been recovered by judgment; an......