William Purves, - Appellant; William Landell, - Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 1845 |
| Date | 10 March 1845 |
| Court | House of Lords |
English Reports Citation: 8 E.R. 1332
House of Lords
Mews' Dig. xiii. 1467. See Hunter v. Caldwell, 1847, 10 Q. B. 69; Parker v. Rolls, 1854, 14 C.B. 691; Blair v. Assets Co. (1896), A.C. 409. As to form of Statement of Claim in Supreme Court, see R.S.C. 1883, App. C. Sec. v. No. 8.
Attorney - Law Agent - Pleading.
[91] WILLIAM PURVES,-Appellant; WILLIAM LANDELL,-Respondent [March 10, 1845]. [Mews' Dig. xiii. 1467. See Himter v. Caldwell, 1847, 10 Q. B. 69; Parker v. Rolls, 1854, 14 C.B. 691; Blair v. Assets Co. (1896), A.C. 409. As to form of Statement of Claim in Supreme Court, see R.S.C. 1883, App. C. Sec. v. No. 8.] Attorney-Law Agent-Pleading. An attorney or law agent is only responsible in damages to- his client for gross ignorance or gross negligence in the performance of his professional services. A declaration, or a summons against an attorney or a law agent, to recover damages for loss occasioned by his management of a cause, must charge gross ignorance or gross negligence, or must, at least, contain allegations of facts, from which the inference is inevitable that the defendant has been guilty of one or the other. The law as to both these matters is the same in England and in Scotland. This was a suit instituted by Landell to recover from Purves,, who was a writer to the Signet, compensation for the loss occasioned, as it was alleged, by his improperly conducting a previous suit (Landell v. Landell, 16 Dunl., Bell., and Murr., 388), in which he had acted as law agent for Landell. The summons contained allegations to the following effect:-Mark Landell, of Coldingham Hill, the uncle of the respondent, was, at the time of his death, which happened many years ago, proprietor of an estate in Jamaica and of the negroes on that estate. He left a widow, Margaret, and a daughter, Hannah Landell, him surviving. By the law of Jamaica the widow was- entitled to one -third of the estate in life-rent^ the fee thereof being vested in the daughter, subject to the liferrent interest of her mother. Hannah Landell died on the 13th of March, 1833, and the respondent, who was her heir at law, then became entitled to the estate, subject to the life -rent of the widow. The compensation payable under the Slavery Abolition Act, in respect of the negroes on the estate of Mark Landell, amounted to 1000, and [92] William Landell, as his 1332 PURVES V. LANDELL [1845] XII CLA^tE & FINNELLY, 93 heir at law, asserted himself to be entitled to receive two-thirds of that sum, or 720, as soon as the compensation was awarded, and to have the remaining third invested for his ultimate benefit, but subject to the life-interest of the widow. The whole of the comipensation money had been claimed in Jamaica by the widow, who was at the time resident there, and had been paid over to her. In July, 1836, she came to reside at the village of Ayton, in the county of Berwick; and William Landell then employed Purves as his professional agent, that he might, as such, advise and adopt what legal measures were necessary for making her amenable to the Scotch Courts, in order that he might recover from her the money, which he contended she had improperly received. Purves recommended an application for a border warrant to compel her appearance, and represented that this mode of procedure was proper and legal; and he, being a regularly licensed agent or procurator before the Sheriff Court of that county, Landell relied on the accuracy and correctness of his representations. Landell accordingly lodged the regular information with the sheriff clerk of Berwickshire; and Purves obtained a warrant in favour of Landell, to arrest the person and goods of Mrs. Landell " until she shall find sufficient caution acted in the Sheriff Court books of Berwickshire, that the debt due to Landell shall be made forthcoming as accords, and a domicile appointed within the jurisdiction of the said county of Berwick, at which she might be cited, and that as well de judicio sisti as judicatum solvi." This warrant was signed by the sheriff clerk of Berwickshire. The fees usual on such warrants were paid by Landell. The warrant was executed, and Mrs. Landell gave the required caution, and appointed a domicile. Landell then instituted a suit against her in the Court of Session. She appeared thereto, and lodged, among other defences, a preliminary plea, to the effect that she, " being neither domi-[93]-ciled in Scotland, nor having any property or effects in it, is not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, and the irregular and illegal proceedings which were adopted to force her, the said defender, within the jurisdiction of the Scotch Courts, are altogether ineffectual for that purpose." The Lord Ordinary adopted this preliminary defence, and reported the case, with his opinion, to the Court of Session; and the Lords there, concurring with him, pronounced the proceeding to be irregular and void, and dismissed the suit with expences. These expences amounted to above 121, which Landell paid to Mrs. Landell, and 69, which he paid to his own agent. Mrs. Landell afterwards brought an action of false imprisonment against both Landell and the sheriff clerk, and recovered damages, as against the former, to the amount of 500, and, as against, the latter, to the amount of 300 (Landell v. Landell and Bell,, 3 Dunl., Bell, M., and D., p. 819, 1841). The summons in the present suit therefore prayed that Purves might be declared liable to make good to Landell the sums of money which he had thus paid, or become liable to pay, in consequence of the irregularity of the warrant, together with the costs of this suit. Purves, in addition to a defence on the merits, put in pleas in law, in which he contended that the summons did not set forth a legal cause of suit; that it only alleged that the proceedings had been held insufficient, but did not allege that he (Purves) had exhibited gross ignorance, or want of professional skill, or had departed from any established rule, or violated any acknowledged practice of the Court, or that he had been guilty of gross neglect in the conduct of the judicial proceedings against Mrs. Landell. The case came before Lord Cockburn, as the Lord Ordinary, who being of opinion that the summons did not [94] present a relevant case for the relief sought, dismissed it with expences. The cause was brought by a reclaiming note before the Lords of the second division of the Court of Session, who, by a decree of 27th May, 1842, altered lids interlocutor, found the summons relevant, and remitted the cause to the Lord Ordinary to proceed therein (Landell v. Purves, 4 Bell, Murr., and Don., (1842) p. 1300. See also the same Vol., p. 1543, on a motion for leave to appeal). This was the decree appealed against. The Lord Advocate and Mr. Turner for the appellant:-A solicitor is not responsible for the failure of a case entrusted to his management when he pursues the ordinary and accustomed course in the conduct of it, nor is he liable except for gross ignorance or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Primeo Fund (in Official Liquidation) v Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd and HSBC Securities Services (Luxembourg) Sa
...[1982] Ch. 204; [1982] 2 W.L.R. 31; [1982] 1 All E.R. 354; [1981] Com. L.R. 265, applied. (69)Purves v. Landell (1845), 12 Cl. & F. 91; 8 E.R. 1332; 4 Bell 46, referred to. (70)Red Sea Tankers Ltd. v. Papachristidis (“The Hellespont Ardent”), [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 547, considered. (71)Ronde......
-
Primeo Fund v Bank of Bermuda (Cayman) Ltd
...1 AC 191 at 287, one is only guilty of gross negligence ‘by some really elementary blunder’; see also Purves v Landell (1845) 12 Cl & F 91, 8 ER 1332 at 1335 with its reference to something which upon its face shows ‘gross ignorance of the ABC of his profession…”. (ii) The fact that the GFS......
-
Rondel v Worsley
...liable for negligence in the conduct of a suit. 15The Courts of Scotland followed the same course as the Courts of England. In 1845 in Purves v. Landell (1845) 12 c. & F. at p. 103 Lord Campbell said: "Against the barrister in England, and the advocate in Scotland, luckily, no action can be......
-
D'orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid
...421 Reasons of McHugh J at [172]–[173]. 422 (1855) 2 K & J 232 [ 69 ER 766]. 423 Later Lord Hatherley. 424 (1845) 12 Cl & F 91 at 103 [ 8 ER 1332 at 1337]. 425 (1855) 2 K & J 232 at 247 [ 69 ER 766 at 772]. 426 (1870) 39 LJ Ch 841. See reasons of McHugh J at [172]–[173]. 427 (1870) 39 LJ Ch......