Thompson v Falk
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 61 E.R. 359
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
Documents. Privileged Communications. Solicitor and Client.
[21] thompson v. falk. 1852. Documents, Privileged Communications. Solicitor and Client. Where it is sworn that documents are confidential communications relating to the particular suit, or to another suit, which, though not actually in the matter of the same litigation, involves or embraces the same issue, they are privileged, although they do not directly relate to the particular suit. This was a motion for the production of documents admitted by the Defendants, the Falks, to be in their possession. The Plaintiffs were Thompson and others, proprietors of salt mines. The Defendants were E. Falk and H. E. Falk, against whom the motion was made on their joint answer. This bill was a cross-bill. The original bill filed in November 1850 by the Falks against Thompson & Co. was for the specific performance of a contract, dated 16th May 1850, for the purchase of some salt mines which were in lease to the Falks by Thompson & Co. The consideration of the purchase being, in addition to the reservation of royalties, a contract by Thompson & Co. to deliver to the Falks rock salt to a certain value, and upon certain terms, the particulars of which it is not material to state at length. The agreement contained a clause for referring any disputed matters to arbitration. The Falks had had dealings with Messrs. Dempsey, Frost & Co., and had made mortgages of the salt mines to Dempsey & Co. with powers of sale. In April 1849 Thompson & Co., the Plaintiffs in the cross-suit, contracted to buy up the right of Dempsey & Co. in the mines for £1750; and by arrangements with Dempsey & Co. they paid the money on the 1st March 1850. On the 7th March 1850 the Falks instituted a suit against the firm of Dempsey & Co. (to which Thompson & Co. were not parties) to redeem the mortgage to Dempsey & Co.; and in that bill the Plaintiffs alleged [22] that Dempsey & Co. were in fact indebted to them in at least £10,000. In the end Thompson & Co. paid £2500 to Dempsey & Co. for possession and for certain other considerations. On the 17th May 1850 possession was given to Thompson & Co. In the original suit of Folk v. Thompson the Falks insisted that Thompson & Co. were liable to pay certain incumbrances on the mines to Dempsey & Co., and the present cross-bill denied any such liability. By their answer to the cross-bill the Falks admitted that before the original bill they and Dempsey & Co. had come to an arrangement that in respect to the claim of Dempsey & Co. for about £9000 against them, the Falks, they should pay lOJd. in the pound, making about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriott v The Anchor Reversionary Company Ltd
...consented to grant such a loan, and on the 24th day of July (1) 1 De G. & S. 12. See G-lynn-v. Caulfield, 3 M. & G. 463; Thompson v. Folk, 1 Drew. 21; Manser v. Dix, 1 K. & J. 451. 192 MARRIOTT V. ANCHOR BE VERSION ABY CO. (LTD.) 2 GIFT. 458. 1858 advanced the said Plaintiff the sum of 1000......
-
Nicholl v Jones
...facit per se." The production, if ordered, would be of no use to the Plaintiff, as it could never be made evidence ; Thompson v. Folk (1 Drew. 21). [THE vice-chancellor Whether it would be evidence or not is not material; orders are often made for production of documents which are not evide......