Wallis and Troward v Bentinck (Duke of Portland)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date05 April 1798
Date05 April 1798
CourtHouse of Lords

English Reports Citation: 3 E.R. 508

House of Lords

Albany Wallis and Richard Troward
-Appellants
The Most Noble William Henry Cavendish Bentinck, Duke of Portland
-Respondent

To a bill against two defendants for a discovery whether the plaintiffs were not employed by one of the defendants, a peer, as solicitors to present and prosecute a petition to the House of Commons on behalf of the other defendants, complaining of an undue election and return, a general demurrer was allowed: principally because such a transaction amounts to maintenance at the common law; and incidentally on the grounds of public policy, and because the discovery could have no effect to enable the plaintiff to maintain any action.

Order of Lord Loughborough C. affirmed.

Mews' Dig. iii. 203; v. 910. Followed in Bradlaugh v. Newdegate, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 7; and see Harris v. Brisco, 1886, 17 Q. B. D. 511.

[161] case 8.-albany wallis and eighard tkowaed,-Appellants; the most noble william henry cavendish bentinck, duke of portland, -Respondent [5th April 1798]. 3 Ves. jun. 494. [To a bill against two defendants for a discovery whether the plaintiffs were not employed by one of the defendants, a peer, as solicitors to present and prosecute a petition to the House of Commons on behalf of the other defendants, complaining of an undue election and return, a general demurrer was allowed : principally because such a transaction amounts to maintenance at the common law; and incidentally on the grounds of public policy, and because the discovery could have no effect to enable the plaintiff to maintain any action.] [Order of Lord Loughborough C. affirmed.] [Mews' Dig. iii. 203 ; v. 910. Followed in Bradlaugh v. Newdegate, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 7j and see Harris v. Brisco, 1886, 17 Q. B. D. 511.] In Michaelmas term 1796, the appellants filed their bill of complaint in the high court of chancery of Great Britain against the Most Noble William Henry Cavendish Bentinck, Duke of Portland, and George Tierney, Esq. setting forth, that the appellants were, in the year 1789, employed by the said Duke of Portland to act as his solicitors, and to present, on the behalf of the said George Tierney, a petition to the house of commons, complaining of the return made of George Jackson, Esq. now Sir George Jackson, to serve as member for the borough of Colchester in parliament, and alleging that the aforesaid George Tierney had been duly elected to serve as member in parliament for the said borough, and praying that the said George Tierney might be declared duly elected: And further setting forth, that the appellants did, in compliance with the direction of the said Duke of Portland, cause to be prepared and presented a petition to the aforesaid purport and effect; and that the appellants, having been instructed by the said Duke of Portland to retain Mr. Douglas and Mr. Graham as counsel in support of such petition, the appellants did retain them accordingly : And further setting forth, that the 24th day of February 1789 having been appointed for the ballot of a committee to try the merits of the said petition, the appellants did instruct the aforesaid counsel to attend and appear in support of the aforesaid petition ; and that the appellants did continue to act as solicitors on the said petition during the whole period which the same was depending, and did 508 WALLIS V. PORTLAND (DUKE of) [1798] VIII BEOWN. advance very considerable sums of money on account of the same, amounting to the sum of 3407 lls. 6d. : And further setting forth, that the said petition having been determined on or about the 4th of April 1789, the appellants did make out an account or a bill of the costs and charges which had been incurred and paid by the appellants, and did deliver the same to a gentleman who acted as a confidential friend of the said Duke of Portland: And further setting forth, that the appellants not having received the amount of such their bill of costs, they [162] repeatedly applied to the said Duke of Portland and the aforesaid George Tierney for the same, with which applications the appellants hoped that the said Duke of Portland and the said George Tierney would have complied; but that the said Duke of Portland alleged that he was not indebted to the appellants on the aforesaid or any other account, and that he never, in any manner, directed or instructed the appellants, or either of them, to act as his solicitors, or to present such petition against the return of the said George Jackson to serve in parliament for the aforesaid borough of Colchester, or did in any manner, direct or indirect, give the appellants to expect that the expence which might be incurred by presenting and proceeding upon such petition should be defrayed by him the said Duke of Portland. That the appellants did, by their said bill, filed in the court of chancery, charge that they were, about the beginning of February 1789, informed by the said George Tierney that he the said...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Wallis v The Duke of Portland
    • United Kingdom
    • High Court of Chancery
    • Invalid date
    ...B. D. 511. 3 VES. JITN. 495. WALLIS V. PORTLAND (DUKE op) 1123 CiLLis" v.' The Duke of portland. Feb. 8th, Wth, Aug. 7th, 1797. fS. C. 8 Bro. P. C. 161. See Eeynell v. Sprye, 1852, 1 De G. M. & G. 677 ; Bradlaugh v. Newdegate, 1883, 11 Q. B. D. 7; Harris v. Brisco, 1886, 17 Q. B. D. 511.] B......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT