Pigot v Cadman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 February 1857 |
| Date | 12 February 1857 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 1439
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 26 L. J. Ex. 134, 5 W R 353 Discussed, In re Tilleard, 1863, 32 Beav 476 affirmed, 3 De G & S 519
1H&N. 837. PIGOT V. CADMAN 1439 [837] pigot v. cadman. Feb 12, 1857.-An attorney's bill which contains, amongst other items, certain extra costs, not mentioning the taxed costs, is bad within the 6 & 7 Viet c 7.5, s 37, even though, in an action on the bill, the jury find that the attorney has no claim for extra costs [S. C. 2G L. J. Ex. 134, 5 W R 353 Discussed, In re Tilkuul, 186'}, 32 Beav 47fl affirmed, 3 I)e G & S 519 ] Action to recover the amount of an attorney's bill Pleas never indebted, and that no signed bill had been delivered as required by the 6 & 7 Viet c 7 5, s 37. At the trial before Bramwell, B, at the last Liverpool Summer Assizes, it appeared that the bill on which the action was brought was piopetly signed, and had been duly delivered to the defendant a month before the action was commenced The bill contained items which represented three separate transactions, in which the plaintiff had been employed, the first being for advice given to the defendant in respect of his liability upon a, promissory note to which he was a party, the second for attendances before magistrates to defend a third person, but which attendances weie said to have been made on the retainer of the defendant, and the third for journeys, consultations, &c., in respect of an alleged liability of the defendant as a partner in a certain mine After the commencement of the suit, the defendant had by Judge's order required the plaintiff to state whether he had any other claims against the defendant than those sought to be recovered in the action , and the plamtitt had in obedience to that order delivered two other brlls foi work alleged to have been done by the plaintiff for the defendant, before the date of the delivery to the defendant of the bill on which this action was founded It further appeared that there had been a suit in Chancery, to which the defendant was a party, with respect to the mine above mentioned, and that all of the items contained under the third division of the bill sued on were extra costs incurred in that Chancery [838] suit, and which had not been allowed on taxation in the suit in Chancery. The defendant admitted a retainer for the woik contained urtder the first division of the bill; denied that the work contained in the second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Tilleard
...in the same bill for equity business, though correctly stated, cannot be recovered; Cook v. Gillanl (1 Ellis & B. 26); Piyot v. Cculman (1 Hurl. & N. 837). 3JBEAV.1. RE TILLEARD 189 But even if the solicitor be allowed to specify and explain the items of a general charge contained in his bi......
-
John Haigh v John Ousey and Others
...have [580] treated that decision as inconsistent with Ivimey v. Marks (16 M. & W. 843), arid did not follow it. And in Pigot v. Cadman (1 H. & N. 837) Ivimey v. Marks (16 M. & W. 843) was acted upon to its full extent.] In Roy v. Turner (26 Law Times, 150) Parke B., in delivering the judgme......
-
Allen v Murphy
...2 B. & P. 238. Jeffreys v. EvansENR 14 M. & W. 210. Brooks v. Bockett 9 Q. B. 847. Scadding v. Eyles 9 Q. B. 858. Pigot v. CadmanENR 1 Hurl. & Nor. 837. Welford v. BeaselyENR 3 Atk. 563. Bleakely v. SmithENR 11 Sim. 150. Holmes v. MackrellENR 3 C. B., N. S., 795. In re Pender 2 Phil. C. R. ......