Smith v Dimes
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 1849 |
| Date | 06 June 1849 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 154 E.R. 1113
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 7 D. & L. 78; 19 L. J. Ex. 60; 13 Jur. 518. Observations adopted, In re Johnson and Wentherall, 1888, 37 Ch. D. 437. Applied, Reid v. Burrow, [1892] 2 Ch. 413.
smith v. dimes. June G, 1849.-Under the 7 & 8 Viet. c. 73, s. 37, an attorney's : bill for agency business is taxable. i[S. C. 7 D. & L. 78; 19 L. J. Ex. 60; 13 Jnr. 518. Observations adopted, In re Johiison and JVeatheraU, 1888, 37 Ch. D. 437. Applied, Reid v. l urraw, [1892] 2 Ch. 413.] Smythies had obtained a rule, calling on the plaintiff in this case to shew cause why hia bill for agency business should not be referred to the Master to be taxed. : Against this rule, in Hilary Term last (./anuary 30), Martin and Willes shewed cause. The question is, whether an attorney's bill for agency business is taxable. The Courts of equity appear to have considered it to be so; but, on the other hand, a different opinion seems to exist in the Courts of common law. The question turns on the construction of the 37th section of the Attornies and Solicitors Act, 0 & 7 Viet. c. 73, which enacts, " that from and after the passing of this Act, no attorney or solicitor, [33] nor any executor, administrator, or assignee of any attorney or solicitor, shall commence or maintain any action or suit for the recovery of any fees, charges, or disbursements, for any business done by such attorney or solicitor, until the expiration of one month after such attorney or solicitor, or executor, administrator, or assignee of such attorney or solicitor, shall have delivered unto the party to be charged therewith, or sent by the post to, or left for him at his counting-house, office of business, dwelling-house, or last known place of abode, a bill of such fees, charges, and disbursements, and which bill shall either be subscriber! with the proper hand of such attorney or solicitor, (or in case of a partnership, by tiny of the partners, either with his own name or with the name or style of such partnership,) or of the executor, administrator, or assignee of such attorney or solicitor,! or be inclosed in or accompanied by u letter, subscribed in like mariner, referring to such bill; and upon the application of the party chargeable by such bill, within siich month, it shall be lawful, in case the business contained in such bill, or any parti thereof, shall have been transacted in the High Court of Chancery, or in any other Court of equity, or in any matter of bankruptcy or lunacy ; or in case no part of such business shall have been transacted in any Court of law or equity, for the Lord High Chancellor or the Master of the Rolls; and in case any part of such business shall have been transacted in any other Court, for the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, Exchequer, Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, or Court of Pleas at Durham, or any judge of either of them, and they are hereby respectively required, to refer such bill, and the demand of such attorney or solicitor, executor, administrator, or assignee, thereupon to be taxed and settled by the proper officer of the Couirt in which such reference shall be made, without any money being brought into Coifrt," &c. It is submitted, that nothing is to be found in this statute which [34] enables an agency bill to be taxed by a Court at common law. Before the recent statute there was no such power. Wet/mouth v. Knife (3 Bing. N. C. 387) is a distinct' authority upon the point. It was there held, that the Court possesses no 1114 SMITH V. DIMES 4 EX. 35 jurisdiction to compel the taxation of an agenoy bill, eithei at common law 01 under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keane v Mount Vernon Colliery Company Ltd
...deceased. The whole jurisprudence on this subject will be found in the judgment of Willes J. in the leading case of Ryder v. Wombwell L.R. 4 Ex. 32, a judgment which justifies fully, I think, the statement I have just made. 44 In this connection some further facts in relation to this family......
-
Bristow v Cormican
...8 C. L. 68. Murphy v. RyanUNKELR Ir. R. 2 C. L. 143. [See L. R. 5 C. P. 665.] Chad v. TilsedENR 2 Br. & B. 408. Ryder v. WombwellELR L. R. 4 Ex. 32. Several fishery in inland non-tidal waters — Plaintiffs' right to several fishery — Question for the jury. 398 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Cont.......
-
Porter v Kirtlan
...14 T. L. R. 20. (2) 79 L. T. 30. (3) [1897] 1 Ch. 284. (4) 38 I. L. T. R. 109. (5) 11 Ad & E. 589. (1) 26 Ch. D. 169. (1) 2 B. & C. 11. (1) 4 Ex. 32. (2) 15 A. C. 203. (1) 38 I. L. T. R. 109. (2) 15 T. L. R. 182. (1) 28 L. J. Ch. 584. (1) 2 B. &C. 11. (1) [1897] 1 Ch., at pp. 284, 287. (2) ......
-
Purdon and Others v The Earl of Longford and Others
...Pleas. PURDON AND OTHERS and THE EARL OF LONGFORD AND OTHERS. Ryder v. WombwellELR L. R. 4 Ex. 32. Giblin v. M'MullenELR L. R. 2 P. C. 335. Bridges v. North London Railway CompanyELR L. R. 7 H. L. 214. Robson v. North Eastern Railway CompanyELR 2 Q. B. D. 85. Rose v. North Eastern Railway C......