Re Walker
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1851 |
| Date | 29 May 1851 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 51 E.R. 274
ROLLS COURT
274 IN BE WALKER MBBAT.U7. [227] In re walkbr.(!) May 27, 29, 1851. A party applying for an order of course should state everything which can have a bearing on the matter, otherwise the order will be discharged. A. B. employed a solicitor in the matter of a mortgage, and there was a dispute between them, whether he was not also liable for the costs of legal proceedings taken in the name of a third party. A. B. obtained ex parts at the Eolla an order for taxation: he stated, however, the mortgage transaction alone, and suppressed the other matters. It was discharged on the ground of the suppression. In 1848 Mr. Parker, who had a claim against the Great Western Railway Company, employed Mr. Walker as his attorney in an action against the company. The action was tried in February 1849, when the matter was referred to arbitration. Mr. Scotfc, who had made advances to Parker during the proceeding, employed Walker to prepare a mortgage from Scott to himself of his demands against the company, for securing the amount due to him. A mortgage was accordingly prepared by Walker, the costs of which were paid by Scott. Scott made further advances to Parker, and on the 3d of January 1851, by instructions from Scott, the amount was indorsed on the mortgage by Walker, who also gave notice of the further charge to the company. On the 12th of March an order was made to change the attorney in the action, and another gentleman was appointed attorney in the place of Walker. On the 29th of March 1851 Scott obtained an order of course, upon petition at the Rolls, for the delivery, [228] and taxation of Walker's bill, and it was ordered, that upon payment, he should deliver up all deeds and papers. The petition simply alleged that Scott had employed Walker in reference to a certain mortgage security, that Scott was desirous of obtaining the papers in Walker's possession, but that he refused to deliver them until his bill of costs had been paid, and that Walker, although applied to, had not delivered his bill of costs against the Petitioner. A motion was now made to discharge the order for taxation, and in support of the motion Walker made an affidavit, stating that, from the execution of the mortgage, he was employed and acted on behalf of Scott, in the conduct of the reference, and in the matters connected with and relating thereto-that he had incurred considerable costs on his account, and that he had continued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Wavell
...481); In re Fender (8 Beav. 299). Even in case of a dispute as to the liability, the matter ought to have been mentioned; In re Walker (14 Beav. 227). Mr. Selwyn, contra. As to two of the bills, the client wholly repudiates them; no part of the business comprised in them was done for him. S......
-
Re Fluker
...namely, the existing order for taxation of the costs in the suit, and that this suppression invalidated the exparte, order ; In re Walker (14 Beav. 227); Re, Winterbottorn (15 Beav. 80). Secondly, that the order ought to have been limited to such costs as had not already been ordered to be ......