Reynell v Sprye
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 07 August 1848 |
| Date | 07 August 1848 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 955
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 10 Beav. 51. See In re Postlethwaite, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 725.
[618] reynell v. sprye. (Ex relatione.) August 5, 7, 1848. [S. C. 10 Beav. 51. See In re Posllethwaite, 1887, 35 Ch. D. 725.] A. B. wrote the draft of a letter to his solicitor, in order that such solicitor might write a similar one to him, to be shewn to C. D., and thereby induce him to enter into a contract. On a bill to set aside the contract for fraud, Held, that the solicitor was bound to produce the letter, but not the other correspondence between himself and his client. Order for production made, on admissions in an answer filed prior to the amendment of the bill, but which did not vary the case. The particulars of this case are mentioned in a former volume (10 Beavan, 51), where the proceedings on a motion for the production of documents are reported. (1) See Westby v. Westby, 1 De Gex & Sm. 410; and Campbell v. Campbell, Reg. Lib. 1835, A. fol. 312. 956 IN RE BAINBRIGGE 11BEAV.819. Further discovery having been obtained, it appeared that the Defendant Young had in his possession Sprye's draft of the letter of April 1844, mentioned in the former report, and that Sprye had written a draft of another letter of 12th May 1843, and sent it to Young, in order that Young, if he concurred, might copy and send it to Sprye, as a letter emanating from Young, with a view to Sprye's forwarding it to Sir Thomas Reynell. This letter was sent by Young to Sprye, and by Sprye to Sir Thomas Reynell, and was mainly instrumental in procuring for Sprye the conveyance of the first moiety of the estate. The Plaintiff now moved for the production of the draft of the letter of April 1844, the letter of the 12th of May 1843, the draft of it, the power of attorney of July 1843, and all the correspondence between Sprye and Young not ordered to be produced on the former occasion. Mr. Shapter, for the Plaintiff, asked for their production, upon the same principle that the letter of April 1844 had formerly been ordered to be produced. He contended that it appeared from the concoction of two such material letters, and from the general nature of the case, that Young had acted in a fraudulent and unprofessional manner, and not according to the usual [619] mode of dealing between solicitor and client. That he had acted as the tool rather...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reynell v Sprye. Sprye v Reynell
...42 E.R. 710 BEFORE THE LORDS JUSTICES. Reynell and Sprye. Sprye v. Reynell S. C. 8 Hare, 222; 21 L. J. Ch. 633. Also, 10 Beav. 51; 11 Beav. 618. See Hilton v. Woods, 1867, L. R. 4 Eq. 439; Arkwright v. Newbold, 1881, 17 Ch. D. 310; Bradlaugh v. Newdegate, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 6. 71'0 REYNELL V......
-
Follett v Jefferyes
...be absurd to hold that a client could withhold the discovery which his solicitor was bound to. give : Eeynell v. Sprye (10 Beav. 51, and 11 Beav. 618). Mr. James Parker and Mr. Freeling, for Mrs. Taylor, said that there was no fraud whatever in the transaction to which the bill related : th......