Read against Dupper
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 13 June 1795 |
| Date | 13 June 1795 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 101 E.R. 595
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Post, 457. 1 East, 464.
Commented on, Brunsdon v. Allard, 1859, 2 El. & El. 27. Discussed and applied, Ross v. Buxton, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 199.
[361] read against duppkk. Saturday, June 13th, 1795. If the defendant's attorney pay to the plaintiff the debt and costs recovered, after notice from the plaintiff's attorney not to do so till his bill has been first satisfied, the former is liable to pay over again ò, to the latter the amount of his lien on such debt and costs of the suit. [Post, 457. 1 East, 464.] [Commented on, Bnmsdon v. Allard, 1859, 2 El. & El. 27. Discussed and applied, Boss v. Bnxtm, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 199.] The principal cause f action, which was for business done by the plaintiff for the defendant, was agreed to be referred to the Master, who awarded a certain sum to be (a) Vide Tyte v. Glode, post, 7 yoL 268. , 596 CAMEROBT .V. GKAY 6T.B.S62. paid to the plaintiff together with costs. The plaintiff afterwards threatened to take the defendant in execution unless the money due to him was immediately paid; whereupon the defendant's attorney, after notice from the plaintiff's attornies not to pay it to the plaintiff himself, because their bill was not satisfied, paid the whole sum to the plaintiff himself. In consequence of which.the plaintiff's attornies applied to this Court in the last term, and obtained a rule calling on the defendant's attorney to shew cause why it should not be referred to the Master to see what lien the plaintiff's attornies had upon the debt and costs recovered in this action as against the plaintiff himself, and why the defendant's attorney should not pay over that sum to the plaintiff's attornies (a)1. G-arrow and Espinasse now shewed cause; and said that whatever lien the plaintiff's attornies might have upon the debt and costs recovered as between them and their client in case the money had been paid into their hands, at any rate the defendant's attorney was warranted in paying the money over to the plaintiff himself in the action (5), especially as the payment appears to have been bona fide, and in order to preserve his client from being arrested, without even the imputation of collusion. There can be no lien before the subject matter on which it is to attach is in the hands of the party claiming to retain it. And if such an application as the present were to prevail, an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khans Solicitors (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and another
...as shortly as we can what we derive from them. 11 The cases are: 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 H......
-
The Serious Fraud Office v Litigation Capital Ltd (a company incorporated in the Marshall Islands) and Others
...in which the solicitor gave notice to the payer of its lien before payment was made ( Welsh v Hole (1779) 1 Doug 238, Read v Draper (1795) 6 TR 361, Ross v Buxton (1889) LR 42 Ch D 190 and Khans). In these cases, the “notice” in question bears strong similarities with that which is given in......
-
Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd
...of the judgment debt to the claimant after notice of the solicitor's interest exposed the payer to having to pay again was provided in Read v Dupper (1795) 6 Term Rep 361. In that case the defendant's solicitor paid the plaintiff direct, after notice of the plaintiff's solicitor's interest,......
-
Pater v Baker
...Carmichael, 1 Dougl. 104; Welsh v. Hole, 1 Dougl. 238; Griffin v. Eyles, 1 H. Bla. 122; Mitchell v. Oldfield, 4 T. R. 123; Read v. Dupper, 6 T. R. 361; Hollis v. Olaridge, 4 Taunt. 807; C'owell v. Betteley, 10 Bingh. 432, 4 M. & Scott, 265, 2 Dowl. P. C. 780; W&rrall v. Johnson, 2 Jac. & W.......
-
THE CASE AGAINST THE EQUITABLE LIEN.
...be ordered to pay again: see Welsh v Hole (1779) 1 Doug 238; 99 ER 155, 155-6 (Lord Mansfield); Read v Dupper (1795) 6 Term R 361; 101 ER 595, 596 (Lord Kenyon CJ) ('Read (70) George Bernard Shaw, The Doctor's Dilemma (Floating Press, 2011) 39. For a similar observation, see Rotherham, Prop......