Sayer v Wagstaff
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 February 1844 |
| Date | 19 February 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 49 E.R. 639
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 13 L. J. 161; on appeal, 14 L. J. Ch. 116; 8 Jur. 1083. See In re London, &c., Banking Company, 1865, 34 Beav. 336.
[415] sayer v. wagstaff. Feb. 9, 19, 1844. [S. C. 13 L. J. Ch. 161 ; on appeal, 14 L. J. Ch. 116; 8 Jur. 1083. See In re London, &c., Banking Company, 1865, 34 Beav. 336.] A petition being presented for the taxation of a solicitor's bill: Held, that the application was to be considered as made at the latest at the time of answering the petition, and not at the time of service of the petition, or the day appointed for hearing. In cases of accidental delay in the office, the period may be carried further back. Where a debtor delivers to his creditor his promissory note for the amount of the debt, the debt may be considered as actually paid, if the creditor, at the time of receiving the note, has agreed to take it in payment of the debt, and to take upon himself the risk of the note being paid ; or if, from the conduct of the creditor, or the special circumstances of the case, suet an agreement is legally to be implied. But in the absence of any special circumstances, the transaction does not amount to a discharge of the original debt, but a mere extended credit. A solicitor delivered his bill of costs on the 14th of October 1842, for which, the client, on the; 3d of November 1842, gave his promissory note, which was paid on the 17th ef November 1842. On the 15th of November" 1843 the client presented a petition for the taxation of the bill, which was answered on the 16th, and was served on the 21st. The day appointed for hearing was the 24th. Held, first, that the bill must be considered as paid on the 17th of November 1842; and, secondly, that the application for taxation must be considered as made at the latest on the 16th of November 1843, and consequently that the application for taxation had been made within twelve months, according to the forty-first section of the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 73. This was a petition by a client for the taxation of his solicitor's bill. The facts which were not in dispute, were as follows :- The signed bill, amounting to 135, 2s. 8d., was delivered to the Petitioner on the 14th of October 1842, and payment was then requested. On the 3d of November 1842 the Petitioner, with a view to discharge the bill, 640 SAYER V. WAGSTAFF 6 BEAV. 418. gave to the Eespondent his promissory note for 135 payable in fourteen clays, and on the 17th of the same month of November, the promissory note was duly honoured and paid. [416] On the 15th of November 1843 the present petition for taxation was brought to the secretary's office. On the following day the common answer or order, requiring the parties concerned to attend on the then next petition day (the 24th of November) and that notice should be given, was written on the petition, and signed by the secretary in the usual manner. The petition was served on the 21st of November, and might have been heard on the 24th, if the parties had been ready, and the state of business in Court had allowed it. The Respondent alleged, that the bill had been paid more than twelve calendar months before any application had been made to tax it, and that, therefore, taxation was precluded by the proviso in the forty-first section of the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 73. The Petitioner, on the other hand, alleged, that the bill in question had been paid less than twelve calendar months at the time he applied for the order to tax it; and that, under the special...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickson, Solicitors
...v. Smith (2 M. & C. 495); Be Stirke (11 Beav. 304); Be Browne (1 De G. M. & G. 322); Be Boyle (5 De G. M. & G. 540); Sayer v. Wagstaff (5 Beav. 415); S. C. on appeal (14 L. J. N. S. Ch. 116). When a taxation is ordered on the application of a person who has not employed the solicitor, the t......
- Armco (Australia) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
-
Blagrave v Routh
...v. Mellersh (2 Mac. & G. 309). Mr. W. M. James and Mr. Cairns, in support of the decree of the Court below, cited Sayer v. Wagstaff (5 Beav. 415); In re Harries (13 M. & W. 3); Stedman v. Colleti (18 Jur. 457). Judgment reserved. Nov. 25. the lord justice knight bruce. In this case I was fo......
-
Playford v Playford
...Re Passmore, 1 Beav. 94; Robins v. Mills, 1 Beav. 217; Wiggins v. Peppin, 2 Beav. 403. To the forty-first section, Taylor v. Wagstaff, 5 Beav. 415. See also the Act discussed at large in 1 S. Sm. 93. 764 PLAYFORD V. PLAYFORD 1 HOLT. EQ. 312. death, actually seised thereof. There was issue o......