Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
The Times, 1824-01-23T00:00:00

F iv1r. 15ELL appeared ir. support of a petition,praving that the exe- cutors of Afr. Frederick Coore deceased, m soliqtorof thtis court, should refund to the pStilioner, Julius Johanping, the sum of 1151, the dffetene9eletween bbill paid to Mr. Goore inhisife-tifne,and the ampount at which it been. taxed incg his deali, which bill was for charges in a pethion presented by the petitionbr.an 'te paTt of the represe;tatives ot Martin Dormcs deeased. Air. RosE waiOn th*esme side. The petition was opp ed.for tbe executors by Mr. HAtT and Mr. PHILLtUOItE, who contended that ibe bill haming been paid in the ife.time of a tmtasor1' his esecultors wYere nlot comlpellable' to refund the amount which had.'beenx taxed off; and thr.t the'consent of the Petitioner testified by lxis payzentof 'the bill, he and those forwhom he ated wereyrealudel,jfr taxinghat bil. Afterhearingeounsel, The VIcE-C ~ ~ ~ ~ isth P The * 5IE-64xLLl ORc sa *hts is the pedtion on behalf of *epertsonaI !epr~esPtative8 of tTirtin Dormer deceased, and it itr~ys:tfat a {>ti oftX3Lswllt btld been psid by beij a6edlit to --ep ceased solicitor,'ahal lbe iubject to taxation as against his executors. 1 It appears that Mr.-Alartin Dormer was ad merchant residing at Hambur,gh,and thb'a he had a veryconsiderableZlanvon the bankrupt estate of Alessrs. Boyd, Benfleld; and Co;i in Enland. After'the death of Mr. Dormer, his personal representatives employed as their attorney Ar. Julius Johanning, a merchant resident here, with a view to the rccovery of the debt, which a fortunate turn in the affiairs of thc bankrupts had seernetd to make extremely probable. Dlr. Johanning wras associated in- this commission'with Dlessrs ihikes, enminent mercantile men in London. In prosecution of the task whlich he,d been intrusted to them, they employed a Mr. Coore, a so- licitor of this cotirt, which presented a petition entitled in the bank- ruptcy1 which petition was signed by Air. Johanning on the behalf of the penton representatives Of the deceased M51artin Donner. Soon after this petidon was presented, and before it-came on to be heard, a compromise was entered into with the surviving partner of the firm of Boyd and Co., by which'a very considerable sum was placed in the hands of Messrs. RMikes. On the same day that they received this money they settled IMr. Coore's bil, and paid him for his Atarge in the petition 2231. Mr. Winter, of the house of Messrs. Raikes, states, what I casn well believe to have been the fact, that to this com- promise, and to thte settlement of tbe accomnt, Nr. Johnaning was an a pproving party but this makes no difference in the case, because he was only an agent as wel as Messrsr. Baikes, and his consent could not conclude his constituents. After the decision of this Court, in I Hazard and lare," I have nu discretion to say that if a solicitor will submit to teceive the amount of his biTI ftorm an ageni, knowingthat such agent could not have communicated with and received the authoritv of his principal, the principal shaU be bound bythe act of theugenit. EeretBepaynentofthe bill was on the same day that the money recovered was paid; under the an- thority of that case I must say, that a solicitor who receives his bill from an agent witbout allowing time for comamunication with the principal, cannot plead, afterwards, that tlle pTinrpal is therefore precluded from taxation. I think, that even if a ful opportunity for communicating (which there was not in this cases xEr the prinm cipals were resident in Harnburgh) had intervened, st5iU the tati.atiOn would not have been precluded. The case of Hlazard and Lane %ta); that of two executors, one of whom only. acted; in the courtE of several years. he had incumred a large demand from llis solicitor, for business done in the eiecution of his office; he paid the bill, but afterwards, although some years had elapsed, the Lord Chancellor thought that the next of kin were entitled to have the solicitor's bill taxed. The principle ef this case, then, extend-, much farther then I am called upon to go in the present case, because it lays down the princiole that pavment by an agent does not preclide the dicnt. If, therefore, Mlr. (.oore were living, there is no donbt that I mustorder his bill to be taxed. The question then arises whether, he being dead, any real difference is made in the principle. The decisions of the courts of common law eni this point were ormerly opposed, the Court of King's Bench bolding that attornies' bills were taxable as against executors the Court of Comnion Pleas holding, on the con- trary, that such bills were not to be taxed. For nany years past, however, the Coommon Pleas have returned to what I think the cor- rect principle, and now order such bills to he in all cases taxed. At coni?non law, I am not aware that anr exceptions to this decision exist; in this court there mightibe ma'nv circurnstances of a special nature, whiclh would require a modifiction of the rule. The at. tendances of the solicitor might have been entirely of a personal na- ure ; or tlle executors mnight have no means of verifying the items t' the bill ; or the delay of the parties applying for the taxadion might be areason for the court not granting it. It is therefore for me to consider whether there are any such modifying circumstances in tlis case. The bill was paid oii the 4th of lP'ebruar7, aiid Alr. Coore unfortunately died on the 22d ofthe sallle month. Dhe amount of the bill was disputed as soon as a communication could be made to Hamburgh, and another solicitor was employed, who wrrote to Mr. Coore's executoas, and to Mlessrs. R.il:es, Onl the sub- ject. Wlhy then, as the rule would apply against the tes.- tator, it must apply in like manner against the executors, for there are no circumstances by which it should be modi. fied. Suppose this case had beeni one of payment, not by an agent, but by a principal-is' Mattin Dormer's representatives had been present, I dloubt whether they would have been coticluded. (Generally speaking, the paynientof asolicitor's bill by the principal es conclusive, and it is reasonable that it should be so; but if th.at paymnent has beeti made in confidence of the solicitor, and the client afterwards being better advised, should find that his 4nfidence had been abused, this Court weoul4 relieve hinm by opening the taxation of the bill In trh instance of the bill now before the Court, it appears that a correspondence took place between rthe executors of Mr.Coore and the solicitor of the petitioner, in consequence of which a taxa- tion was submitted to, and tic derks in court on both sides reduced the bill front 2231, to 1081. I shoald be induced to think tsat titis was a case in which the cotifidence of the client had bect abused; and therefore I shoutld, untler any circumrtances, have ordered, as I do now, that the sum taxed off be refuinded to the petitioner by the executors of Mr. Coere, out of such assets as they may have in hand. I VICE.CHAZNCELLOR'S CQURT. TnURSDA. JkN,. 22. IN RE JOIANN-ING.