Robbins against Fennell, Child and Kelly

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date27 November 1847
Date27 November 1847
CourtCourt of the Queen's Bench

English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 468

QUEENS BENCH

Robbins against Fennell, Child and Kelly

S. C. 17 L. J. Q. B. 77; 12 Jur. 157. Explained and distinguished, Collins v. Brook, 1860, 5 H. & N. 707. See New Zealand and Australian Land Company v. Ruston. 1880-81, 5 Q. B. D. 480; 7 Q. B. D. 374; Ex parte Edwards, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 158; 8 Q. B. D. 262.

[248] robbins against fennell, child and kelly. Saturday, November 27th, 1847. Where a country attorney, who is employed in a cause, employs a London agent, there is not, in general, such privity between the client and the London agent as entitles the client to recover, for money had and received, against the agent, in respect of proceeds of the cause which the agent has received in the ordinary course of his business. But, if it appear that such proceeds have been received by the agent without authority, either from the client or the country attorney, the Court will, if the agent be an attorney of the Court compel him, upon application, to pay over the proceeds to the client. Though the country attorney be indebted to the London agent in a greater sum on other accounts. [S. C. 17 L. J. Q. B. 77 ; 12 Jur. 157. Explained and distinguished, Collins v. Brook, 1860, 5 H. & N. 707. See New Zealand and Australian Lund Company v. Euston, 1880-81, 5 Q. B. D. 480; 7 Q. B. D. 374 ; Exparte Edwards, 1881, 7 Q. B. D. 158; 8 Q. B. D. 262.] Aasumpsit for money lent, money had and received, and on an account stated. Plea : non assumpsit. Issue thereon. On the trial, before Platt B., at the Wiltshire Summer Assizes, 1846, it appeared that the plaintiff had recovered judgment, in a case of Robbing v. Heath and Others, upon a warrant of attorney. This judgment had been entered up for the plaintiff by Messrs. Addia & Guy, London attorneys. On 10th May 1846, Messrs. Slade & Jones, attorneys at Devizes, wrote to the defendants, who were London attorneys, and agents of Slade & Jones, directing them to issue a fi. fa. on the warrant of attorney, to be indorsed, for the principal money secured and interest, 1571. 5s., besides, &c. as usual. The (e)1 1 Leach, C. C. 274, 4th ed.; S. C. note (d) to Rex v. Turner, 13 East, 230. (a)2 Reported by H. Davison, Esq. 11Q. B. 249. ROBBINS V. FENNKLL 469 letter added : " Obtain warrant on the fi. fa. from Undersheriffof Wilts' agents in town, and send same by to-morrow night's post to Samuel Hinder, the officer at Melksham; and direct him to come up to us at Devizes, immediately he receives the warrant, for his instructions aa to levying," &c. The defendants accordingly issued the fi. fa., which was indorsed in the name of the defendants "for" Slade & Jones, and sent it to Hinder, with instructions to call upon Slade and Jones before levying. The officer did so ; and afterwards he made the levy and sent the [249] money to the undersheriff. He stated, on the trial, that he had no special instructions to do so. The undersheriff also, without special instructions, but (according to evidence given at the trial) in conformity with the usual practice, forwarded the money to the defendants; which was done by his informing them by letter that Williams, Deacon & Co., of Birchin Lane, were requested to pay them 1661. 3s., the amount of the levy ; and the defendants drew on Williams, Deacon & Co., and received the amount accordingly, They afterwards refused to pay it to the plaintiff, on the ground that Slade & Jones were indebted to them in a larger sum. No evidence of the debt last mentioned was given at the trial: but the defendants insisted that the plaintiff must be nonsuited for want of privity between him and them. The learned Judge reserved leave to move for a nonsuit: and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for 1651. In Michaelmas term 1846, Crowder obtained a rule nisi for a nonsuit, or a new trial. Montague Smith and Taprell now shewed cause (a). The rule is to be supported on the ground that the privity is, not between the London agent and the client, but between the London agent and the country attorney. But in Moody v. Spencer (2 D. & K. 6), it was decided that the London agent has not, as against the client of the country attorney, a general lien upon the proceeds of a suit for a debt due to such agent from the country attorney. Cobb v. Becke (6 Q. B. 930), will be cited on the other side. There a client had paid money to his attorney in [250] the country for the purpose of compounding an action ; the country attorney had transmitted it for that purpose to his London agent; and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Porter v Kirtlan
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 14 June 1916
    ... ... proceedings in the King's Bench Division in Ireland against T. S. of Dublin. At the trial of the action, without a ... the client and the London agent.” In Robbins v. Fennell ( 2 ) the defendants, who were town agents, ... ...
  • Calico Printer Association v Barclays Bank Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • King's Bench Division
    • Invalid date

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT