Walker v Wildman
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 1821 |
| Date | 23 March 1821 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 56 E.R. 1007
COURT OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF ENGLAND
START [47] walkek v. wildman. March 23, 1821. Privilege of solicitor and client extends to all communications for professional advice ; but not to employment in matters not professional. This was a motion that the Defendant, Mrs. Wildman, might be ordered to produce letters and papers referred to in the schedule of her answer. Mrs. Wildmau had stated in her answer that the letters set forth in the schedule from her and her son to Mr. Le Blanc, her solicitor, had passed in confidence, and in the usual course of business between a solicitor and client. Mr. Bell and Mr. Sugden, for the motion; Mr. Heald, Mr. Combe and Mr. Walker, contra. The cases cited were Wilson, v. Rashleigh (4 T. K. 756), Ratdiffe v. Freeman (2 Bro. P. C. To ml. edit. p. 514), Stanhope v. Roberts (2 Atk. 214), Mayer v. J7nght (6 Ves. 281), Rex v. Dixon (3 Burr. 1687), Cmnxtown v. Johnson (5 Ves. 179), Richards v. Jackson (18 Ves.), Phillips on Evidence, tit. Privilege. the vice-chancellor [Sir John Leach] refused to make the order; stating that he considered the protection to extend not merely to communications made pending an action or suit, but to every communication made by the client to counsel, or attorney, or solicitor, for professional assistance. But that the protection did not extend to cases where the counsel, attorney or solicitor was employed in matters not thereinbefore directed (the amount whereof was to be certified by the said Master) should be sold with the privity of the said Accountarit-G-eneral; and it was ordered that, out of the money to arise by such sale, and any other sum which might be in the bank placed to the credit of the said cause, what the Master should so certify to remain of the said costs should be paid to Mr. Charles Constable, the Defendant's solicitor; and it was ordered that the above-bounden Marg. Stokoe should, at her own expense, execute to the said Lionel Robson her bond, to indemnify him the said Lionel Robson against any demand which might be made upon him in respect of the mortgage deeds hereinbefore recited ; and it was ordered that upon the due execution of the said bond (such execution to be certified by the said Master) the residue of the said Bank annuities should be transmitted to the said above-bonnden Margaret Stokoe, and that thereupon the above-bounden Marg. Stokoe should reconvey and reassign the said mortgaged premises unto the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Minter v Priest
-
Russell v Jackson
...v. Lucas (2 B. & C. 745),, Follett v. Jefferyes (1 Sim. (N. S.) 1), Desbormigh v. Bawlins (3 My. & Cr. 515), and Walker v. Wildman (6 Madd. 47), were cited. the vice-chancellor. [Sir G. J. Turner] (after stating the nature of the suit and the depositions of Solomon Bray, which have been men......
- Commissioner of Taxation v Pratt Holdings Pty Ltd
-
Carpmael v Powis
...I Lord (Tottenham in Sawyar v, Birchniore (3 Myl. & K. 572) and Desbormigh v. Rawlvns (3 Myl. & Cr. 515); and that, in Walker v. Wild-man (6 Madd. 47), Sir John Leach,: after adverting to the distinction between professional and non-professional matters, mentioned the treaty for the purchas......