Wraight v Johnston
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 March 1858 |
| Date | 16 March 1858 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 175 E.R. 656
QUEEN'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[128] March 16th, 1858 wraight v. johnston (When an attorney is retained to do his best to obtain redress for a client, who claims a tenancy or any other right of small value under a written document, on which, whether because it requires to be, but is not, stamped, or because it is of doubtful and difficult construction, it may be perilous to sue, he has authority to compromise the claim and give up the document; but in an action by the client (a) There was no averment that " black-leg " meant a person in the habit of cheating at cards, which would have been necessary before the C L. P. Act, 1852, and would have been admitted by not guilty ; M'Gregor v. Gregory, 11 M. & W 287 , 12 L. J., Exch 204; 2 D , N. S. 769. But by sect 61 of that act (Finlason's C. L. P Acts, 138), such an allegation is not necessary, and is involved in the innuendo and on issue under that plea (b) An objection, well founded, of the words used have been spoken m a sense different from their ordinary sense , Dairies v Hartley, 13 Exch. Rep 200 , 18 L J , Exch. 81 ; but non constut that " black-leg " is used in any other sense than a bad one ; and semble, that it would be nonsense in any other than a bad sense. In the case just cited, the words used, " look out sharp," were pnrna facie harmless , and, in such a case, the tone is everything See Browne v. Gooden, 1 C. B 228 ; see as to " black-sheep," O'Bnen v. Clement, 16 M & W. 159 , 16 L J , Exch 77. (c) King v. Watts, 8 Car. & P 614 (d) 8 East, 1 , and see 3 P , De Cresfngny v Wellesley, 5 Bing 392 . Ward v. Weeks, 7 Bing 211. (e) The case was moved, and the ruling was upheld; but a rule granted (in the Court of Exchequer) only on the point reserved. On the argument, the Court were equally divided. See the report of the case in banco in the Law Journal. IF. & P. 129. WRAIGHT V. JOHNSTON 657 against him for negligence m not obtaining sufficient compensation and for giving up the document, it may neveitheie&s be a question for the jury, upon all the circumstances, whether there was a want of due care in coming to the compromise, provided there is any evidence of a want of such due care (a); but his not having ascertained the amount of the damage, before agreeing to the compromise, held insufficient evidence of negligence , and a verdict entered for the defendant.) Case against an attorney for negligence The first two...
To continue reading
Request your trial