Padwick v Hurst
|England & Wales
|31 May 1854
|31 May 1854
|High Court of Chancery
English Reports Citation: 52 E.R. 225
S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 657; 18 Jur. 763.
 padwick v. hurst. May 31, 1854. [S. C. 23 L. J. Ch. 657; 18 Jur. 763.] A mere general allegation in a bill for an account, that the accounts are complicated, will not prevent a demurrer, unless there are sufficient facts stated in the bill to justify that conclusion. The fact of a person receiving money for his principal, and paying money for him or to him, and lending him money, where the account consists simply in receipts and payments by the agent, to or on behalf of the principal, does not constitute a case E. v.-8 226 PADWICK V. HUBST 18BBAV.578. of mutual accounts, so as to justify the agent in filing a bill against his principal for an account. This bill, filed by a solicitor against his client, stated that from the beginning of the month of May 1834, up to the 4th of November 1848, and thenceforth up to the month of July 1852 inclusive, the Defendant employed the Plaintiff as his attorney and solicitor, and agent, to transact various matters of business for him, and also to receive and pay moneys on his account, and the Plaintiff, as such attorney and solicitor, and agent, accordingly transacted various matters of business for the Defendant, and received and paid various sums of money to a large amount in the whole on the Defendant's account. The Plaintiff also, at various times during the period aforesaid, advanced moneys of his own to the Defendant, or for his use, by way of loan. From time to time during the period aforesaid, the Defendant himself paid to the Plaintiff various sums of money to a considerable sum in the whole. Under the circumstances aforesaid, the Plaintiff and Defendant became mutually indebted the one to the other, and there were, up to and from the various times hereinafter in that behalf mentioned, open and running accounts between them. The bill then set out five different settlements of account between May 1834 and the 4th of November  1848, which was the elate of the last. These accounts included the bills of costs delivered up to that time. The bill then alleged that the Defendant carefully examined and went over the items of the last account and satisfied himself as to the correctness thereof, and he paid over to the Plaintiff the balance of 19, 7s., and he moreover wrote in the Plaintiff's book of account, on the debit side, above the item on that side, and leaving the balance due to the Plaintiff, the words and figures following, " All accounts balanced up to this day, November 4th, 1848;"and he also, in token of his approval of the account, and of the fact that it had been finally stated and settled up to that date, between and by him and the Plaintiff, wrote at the foot of the debit side of the account, so made up and balanced, the words and figures following, "4th November 1848, this account was this day settled between us," and signed his name under such words and figures. That under the circumstances aforesaid, the cash account between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (which, however, included only the Plaintiff's bill of costs actually delivered) was stated and settled up to and including the 4th of November 1848. That, after the 4th of November 1848, the Defendant continued to employ the Plaintiff as his attorney and solicitor, and agent to various...
To continue readingRequest your trial
Wythes v Lee
...on the complication of the accounts between the vendor and purchaser. On this  point the learned counsel cited Padwick v. Hurst (18 Beav. 575).] The mere complication of accounts between principal and agent will not support a bill. But here all the payments are on one side; that is a p......
Smith v Leveaux
...a banker to keep his customer's account; yet that case decides that a bill by the customer for an account will not lie. Pculwick v. Hurst (18 Beav. 575) proceeds on the same principle. There is not alleged to be here any such complication as to bring the case within the exceptional class of......