Weymouth v Knipe
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 1837 |
| Date | 25 November 1837 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 132 E.R. 459
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 6 L. J. C. P. 61. Followed, Cardale v. Bull, 1843, 4 Q. B. 613; Smith v. Dimes, 1849, 7 D. & L. 82.
[387] new cases in the court of common pleas, and other courts. hilary term, in the seventh year of the keign of william IV. The Court during this Term consisted of the following Judges, Tindal C. J., Park J., Vaughan J. Bosanquet J. But, with the exception of the first three days, Bosanquet J. was prevented by illness from attending. weymouth v. knipe. Nov. 25, 1837 (a). [S. C. 6 L. J. C. P. 61. Followed, Cardale v. Bull, 1843, 4 Q. B. 613; Smith v. Dimes, 1849, 7 D. & L. 82.] The Court possesses no jurisdiction to compel the taxation of an agency bill, either at common law or under the stats. 2 G. 2 and 12 G. 2, c. 13, even where a suit is pending against the Defendant for the recovery of the amount. Petersdorff had obtained a rule on the part of the Defendant, an attorney carrying on business in the country, calling upon the Plaintiff, who was also an attorney and () The report of this case, decided in Michaelmas term, was unavoidably deferred. 460 WEYMOUTH V. KNIPE 3 BING. (N. C.) 388. the Defendant's town agent, to shew [388] cause why the Plaintiff's several bills of costs should not be referred to the prothonotary to be taxed, upon the Defendant's undertaking to pay into Court the sum of 831. Is. 4d., without prejudice to his pleading issuably and taking short notice of trial; proceedings in the meantime to be stayed. It appeared from affidavits that the Plaintiff had transacted the Defendant's agency business since the year 1831, and had sent in four several bills; that money had been paid on account from time to time, but no settlement of any of the bills had taken place; that the balance claimed to be due was 1081. 17s. 8d., for which this action was brought; and that on the 6th of November instant the Plaintiff attended a summons before Park J., taken out by the Defendant, for the purpose of obtaining the taxation of the bills, when the learned Judge refused the order. Crowder, who shewed cause against the rule, contended that the Court had no power to order the taxation of these bills. The stat. 2 G. 2, c. 23, s. 23, applies only to cases between an attorney and a lay client: and to exclude all doubt upon the subject, by the 12 G. 2, c. 13, s. 6, it is expressly enacted, "that the said act (2 G. 2, c. 23), or any matter or thing therein...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrison v Tew
...money when accounting to the client. In Jones v. Roberts (1837) 8 Sim. V. C. 397, the question arose of taxation of an agency bill. In Weymouth v. Knipe (1837) 3 Bing. (N. C.) 387 the Court of Common Pleas had decided that it had no power to order taxation of such a bill, because the only a......
-
Smith v Dimes
...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 ......
-
Bastable v Reardon
...v. ChattertonENR 3 B. & Ald. 486. Clutterbuck v. CombesENR 5 B. & Ad. 400. Dagley v. KentishENR 2 B. & Ad. 411. Weymouth v. KnipeENR 3 Bing. N. C. 387; S. C. 3 Scott, 764. Rogers v. Peterson 7 Dowl. D. C. 187. Hobby v. Pritchard 2 Mee. & W. 124. Evans v. Beevis 2 Barnardiston, 182. Ex parte......