Whitehead v Lord, Administrator of Ann Lord, Deceased
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 30 April 1852 |
| Date | 30 April 1852 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 1126
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 21 L J Ex 239 Applied, Stokes v. Trumper, 1855, 2 K & J 232 Discussed, In re Cartwright, 1873, L R 16 Eq 474, Beck v. Pierce, 1889, 23 Q B D 323, 9 Ch D. 541, In re Romer and Haslom, [1893] 2 Q B 286
[691] wiutehead v lord, Administrator of Ann Lord, Deceased Apul 30, 1852 -As a general rule, in attorney or solicitor, retimed to conduct a suit, is under the obligation to carry it on to its termination, and he cannot sue for his bill of costs until that period has arrived He may, howevei, gue a teasonable notice to his client to supply him with adequate funds, and in case of refusal, he may sue him foi his costs The retainer is also determined by the death of the client -A solicitor was retained in a Chancery suit in which his client \vah a defendant, and an order was made by the Court that a supplemental bill should be hied, to make certain persons, next of km, partres to the suit, no decree was ever made, nor was there any further atep taken in the suit Upwards of ten year.s after this older had been made, the solicitor's client died -Held, m an action by the solicitor against the representative of the client fot his bill of costs up to the time when the older was made, that the debt was not batted by the Statute of Limitations [S C 21 L J Ex 23') Applied, StoLei, v Timnpei, 1855, -J K \, J 2.J2 Discussed, InreCartwiiglit, 1873, L R 16 Eq 474, Berk v Pie-ice, 1889, 23 Q B I) !2 $, Underwood v Lewis, [1894] 2 Q B 306 Referred to, In if flail and liaiLei, 1878, 9 Ch D. 541, In ie Earner and Haslvm, [1893] 2 Q B 286 ] Debt by the plaintiff, as a solicitor, for services arid costs upon the retainer of one Ann Lord, of whom the defendant was the administrator Plea, the Statute of Limitations At the trial, befoie Martin, B , at the Middlesex Sittings in last Term, the following facts appealed In the year 1835, Ann Loid, the deceased, had, as administtatitx of her son, been made defendant in a suit in equity by a bill of levivot, and had retained the plaintiff as her solicitor in that suit In the year 1840, upon the original suit and the bill of tevivor coming on to be heatd, an oidei was. made, that a supplemental bill should be tiled, to make ceitam persons, who weio next of kin, paities to the suit No .supplemental bill, however, was ever hied, noi was any other pioceeding taken rn the suit Ann Lord died in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Graves v Cohen and Others
-
Coppinger v Synott
...538. Vansandan v. BrownENR 9 Bing. 402. Harris v. OsborneENR 2 Cr. & M. 629. Nicholls v. WilsonENR 11 M. & W. 106. Whitehead v. LordENR 7 Ex. 691. COMMON LAW REPORTS. 563 MOORE, J. I entertain great doubts whether the points were properly raised on the pleadings. The correct course would ha......