The Executors of Aitkin, Deceased
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1820 |
| Date | 08 November 1820 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 106 E.R. 855
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
in the mattbk of the executors OF aitkin, Deceased. Wednesday, November 8th, 1820. Where the employment of an attorney is so connected with his professional character as to afford a presumption that his employment was in consequence of that character, the Court will interfere in a summary way to compel him faithfully to execute the trust reposed in him; and therefore, where an attorney was employed by A. to collect and get in the effects due to him as administrator of another person, the Court compelled the attorney to render an account to the executors of A. of the monies, &c. received by him, although he (a) Abbott C.J. and Holroyd J. were absent in the House of Lords. 856 CRAWSHAY V. HOMFRAY 4B.&ALD.48/ had never been employed by A. or his executors to conduct any suit in law or equity on his or their behalf. [Discussed, Cooper v. Ewart, 1847, 2 PI. 366.] Scarlett had obtained a rule, calling upon Mr. Blamire, an attorney of this Court, to shew cause why he should not deliver to the attornies of the exe-[48]-cutors of John Aitkin his bill of costs, in relation to business done for the said John Aitkin, deceased, as administrator of George Aitkin, deceased; and also an account of his receipts and payments in respect of the estate of George Aitkin; and why he should not pay over the balance in his hands, and deliver up all deeds, papers, and writings in his custody or power belonging to the said executors. It appeared from the affidavits that Mr. Blamire had been employed by John Aitkin as his attorney and agent, to collect and get in the effects of George Aitkin, and that he had received considerable sums of money on that account: that repeated applications had been made by the executors of John Aitkin for this account, and for his bill of costs relating thereto; which had all been ineffectual. The affidavits in answer stated, that Mr. Blamire never "was employed either by John Aitkin or by his executors in prosecuting or defending any cause or suit, or other proceeding in this Court, or in any other Court of Law or Equity. Littledale shewed cause, and contended that this was an answer to the present application; and he cited Cocks v. Harman (6 East, 404), where an application for a rule upon the defendant, to deliver up to the plaintiff an account similar to the present, was refused. And in Ex parte Lowe (8 East, 237), a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Att Gen v Carbonneau
...second defendant; Ms. S.M. Corbett for Barclays Private Bank & Trust (Cayman) Ltd. Cases cited: (1) Aitken, ReENR(1820), 4 B. & Ald. 47; 106 E.R. 855, distinguished. (2) Bodenham, Ex p.ENR(1838), 8 Ad. & E. 959; 112 E.R. 1105, distinguished. (3) Dangar”s Trusts, ReELR(1889), 41 Ch. D. 178, ......