White v Pearce
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1849 |
| Date | 14 July 1849 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 68 E.R. 113
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
S. C. 18 L. J. Ch. 462; 13 Jur. 999. See Ross v. Buxton, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 197.
[276] white v. pearce. July 14, 1849. [S. C. 18 L. J. Ch. 462; 13 Jur. 999. See Eoss v. Bwxton, 1889, 42 Ch. D. 197.] The solicitor of the Plaintiff in a foreclosure suit, in which a decree for sale before the Master was made by consent, prosecuted the suit to the settlement of the particulars and conditions, and appointment of the day of sale, when the Plaintiff and the Defendant (by his solicitor), having notice of the claim of the Plaintiff's solicitor for the costs of the suit, compromised the suit on the terms of paying the Plaintiff a certain sum in discharge of the debt and costs, part of which sum was immediately paid to the Plaintiff. Upon the petition of the Plaintiffs solicitor the Court ordered the costs of the Plaintiff's solicitor in the suit to be taxed and paid by the Plaintiff and Defendant, or one of them. At the hearing of a foreclosure suit a decree was made for payment by the Defendant to the Plaintiff of the principal, interests and costs within six months after the Master's report; and by consent, in default of such payment, that the mortgaged estate should be sold with the approbation of the Master, and the purchase-money paid into Court. The Master reported the amount of the debt and interest to be 243, 10s. 4d. and the costs 117, 15s. lid. Default was made, and the particulars and conditions of sale were carried in, and approved by the Master, and the sale appointed and advertised to take place on the 2d of June 1849. The solicitor of the Plaintiff, having reason to suppose than an intention to compromise the suit was entertained by the Plaintiff and Defendant, gave notice to the Defendant, and also to his solicitors, of his claim (as solicitor of the Plaintiff in the cause) for the costs of the suit. The Plaintiff and the solicitor of the Defendant, acting on behalf of the latter, afterwards agreed to settle the mortgage debt and the suit for a sum of 300, to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff; 200 of which was then paid, and 100 retained in the hands of the Defendant's solicitors, and the sale was countermanded. [277] The solicitor of- the Plaintiff by petition prayed that the Plaintiff or the Defendant might be ordered to pay the Petitioner his costs out of any monies paid, or to be paid, to the Plaintiff in respect of the debt or debt and costs, the subject of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Khans Solicitors (A Firm) v Chifuntwe and another
...Read v Dupper (1795) 6 T.R. 361 ; 101 E.R.595 (Lord Kenyon CJ) Ormerod v Tate (1801) 1 East 463 ; 102 E.R. 179 (Lord Kenyon CJ) White v Pearce (1849) 1 Hare 276 ; 68 E.R.113 (Wigram V-C) Brunsdon v Allard (1859) 2 El. & El. 19 (QBD) The Hope (1883) 8 P.D. 144 (CA) Ross v Buxton......
-
Dunn v Dunn
...Rhodes (15 Ves. 539), Davies v. Lawndes (3 C. B. 808), Welshv. Hok (1 Dougl. 238), Friswell v. King (15 Sim. 191), White v. Ptarce (7 Hare, 276), Mandeno v. Mandeno (Kay, App. ii.). the lord justice knight bruce. Whether a Hen might have been acquired by the solicitor it is not necessary to......
-
Tkach, Duchin & Bayda v. Wood and Fairhurst, (1992) 99 Sask.R. 256 (QB)
...here: (1) By action: Sympson v. Prothers (1857), 26 LJ Ch. 671; 3 Jur (NS) 711; (2) By petition: White v. Pearce (1849), 7 Hare 276; 68 ER 113; (3) By obtaining a stop order on the fund, if in Court: Lucas v. Peacock (1846), 9 Beav 177; 50 E.R. 311, decided under the former practice, and se......