The Sun.
London, England, 1806-12-15 00:00:00

LATI' REPORT.

COURT OF KlNc3's RENICI-1, DEC. 13.
LATIMER V. FIELD.

This was an Otion upon a Bill of Exchange for
4551. drawn by Messrs. Atkinson, Cfrde,-ani Wa-
ters, upon, and -accepted by, the,llefendant; and in-
dorsed by Waters, fir himself and partners, to the
Plaintiff, who is an Attorney.

Atkinson and Co. Were indebted to one Lucas in
about 500]. and In order to pay this money,'Orde
procured the Defendant to Accept the Bill in ques-
tion for the accommodation.of the house, although
at that time they .Were considerably indebted to
Field, the Defendant: Waters told his partners he'
could raise the Money from Latimer, the Plaintitil
and, with the consent of Atkinson and Orde, he
took the Bill to Latimer, and deposited it with him,
indorsed, together wits) two puncheons of brandy.
Latimer, however, did not discount the' Bill but
Waters procured the mOnev
,from other sources,
and advanced it himself, still leaving his partners to
suppose that Latinier had advanced the money.,-,
Atkinson and Co. becoming bankrupts, Latimer re-
turned the brandy to the Assignees,;_ and when the
Bill was demanded of him to be given up, he claim-
ed: to retain it for a bill of costs against Atkinson and
Co. and also against Waters; but he had not de-
livered in any bill; signed, for the space of one
month, according to the Statute, which requires
Attornies to do so in order to sue for their bills.

Tile question now was, whether, as Latimer had
given no consideration for the Bill, and Atkinson
and Co. had no right to recover of Field, Latimer,
the Plainta, could recover either for the amount' of.
the whole Bill, or for his lien for the•bill of costs ?
There' was no proof of any over to take,of the De-
fendant any specific sum due upon the lien for costs;
but, on the contrary, , the bill of particulars deli-
! vered under the Judge'S order in this cause, specified
the demand to be fur the amount of the Bill of
Exchange.
Mr. MARRYATT, for the Plaintiff,contended, that
as Waters hod advanced the money to the house, he
was an ilidofsee for a valuable consideration, and
Latimer. might clothe himself with the bill of
°Waters ; at any rate he might recover for his lien as
an attorney.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH held .that Waters had no
title to give, except as the Agent for the House of
Atkin on and Co. ; but, that the Plaintiff being their
Attorney, and having poisesslon, of the bill, must
have his lien for his bill of costs. That question he
conSidered, however, as somewhat novel, whether
he-could recover for that amount without having de-
livered his bill signed according to the Statute. He
therefore reserved the following point, " Whether
an Attorney can, in respe& of his lien fbr business
done, not having delivered a bill signed according to
the Statute, bring his adion a§ indurSee of'a bill de-
posited in his hands for the benefit of his clients for
a purpose which he has not performed ?".
Verdid for the -Plaintiff, with liberty to the De-
_ fendant to move to enter a non-suit- on the above
point; and in case the Court is of opinion that the
Plaintiff is entitled to recover, then the amount of the
, damages to be referred to. Mr. Lowten.
His Lordship afterwards' intimated to Mr. Mar.
ryatt a strong opinion in favour. of the Defendant, ,
fur he said he thought it would go wholly to defeat
the provisions of'the Statute.