Analytical Digest of Cases: Law of Attorneys-Law of Costs. having died during the taxation of the costs ordered to be paid by the defendant, and thereupon the Taxing Master refusing to proceed, the defendant was ordered to be served with subpoena to appoint another solicitor; and service of it, under the circumstances, at the late residence of parties with whom the defendant last and usually resided, was ordered to be deemed good service. Gibson v. Ingo, 35 L. O. 390. 2. Agreement.-An agreement that a solicitor shall be paid a certain sum per day above his usual costs, is not such an agreement as makes it necessary to obtain a special order for taxation. Re George Eyre, 35 L. O. 323. WITNESS. See Advocate: Privilege. Law of Costs. AFFIDAVITS. 565 COURT OF REQUESTS. Jurisdiction.-An action was commenced in a Superior Court in December, 1846, for a debt recoverable under the provisions of a Court of Requests Act. Notice of declaration was given on the 28th of March, 1847, on which the defendant paid the debt. The Court of Requests Act provided, that where a party commenced proceedings in the superior courts for a debt recoverable under the Court of Requests Act, he should have no costs. The plaintiff, however, demanded 67. 17s. costs, which not being paid, he signed final judgment on the 1st of May, and issued execution. No County Court was established in the district until March, 1847. A motion being made to set aside the execution and enter a suggestion on the roll to deprive the plaintiff of costs. Held, that as the plaintiff had commenced his action in the superior court at a time when he would not have been entitled to any costs, The Court refused to appoint a receiver of he could not recover them now; for the 9 & partnership property, though after a dissolution, 10 Vict. c. 95, merely repealed Courts of where there was no allegation of mismanage- Requests Acts from the time of the establishment or waste, and the effect of the appoint- ment of the County Courts in the districts ment would be to hinder the business being where the Court of Request existed. Warburg carried on according to the original agreement v. Read, 35 L. O. 68. on which the partnership was founded. The costs of affidavits filed by a defendant in opposition to affidavits filed by the plaintiff after answer, and therefore inadmissible, ordered to be borne by the plaintiff. Child v. Clive, 35 L. O. 366. APPEAL. 1. Bill for injunction where plaintiff's title fails at law.-Appeal for costs only. This Court has no jurisdiction to mulct the defendant in his costs of an injunction suit, upon the grounds of a vexatious and expensive defence of the action at law, wherein the plaintiff failed to show a title to the subject-matter of the bill. An appeal for costs only will be entertained whenever a principle is involved, or the practice of the Court requires to be defined, or a particular estate or fund has been charged with them, or they have been refused, contrary to the usual practice, as in a bill for discovery, &c. Chappell v. Purday, 34 L. O. 103. 2. Motion in respect of costs only. - The Court will not rehear a motion in respect only of costs, if it be necessary to investigate the facts of the case for the purpose of ascertaining the propriety of the decision in respect of the costs. Myers v. Wetherall, 34 L. Ö. 79. See Jurisdiction. COVENANT. DISCLAIMER.. Dismissal of bill.-On an application of the plaintiff to dismiss his bill with costs against a disclaiming defendant, without prejudice to any question how the costs of such defendant should be ultimately borne, order refused. Wigginton v. Pateman, 35 L. O. 391. EXCEPTIONS. A plaintiff who had not served the order referring the exceptions within the proper time, was refused a motion to discharge the order, ordered to pay the costs of the irregular service. or to take the exceptions off the file, and was Atlee v. Gibson, 35 L. O. FEME COVERT. Verdict obtained on a plea of coverture.Where a married woman obtains a verdict upon a plea of coverture pleaded by her in person, she is entitled to a taxation of her costs out of pocket. Findley v. Farquharson, 3 C. B. 347. INJUNCTION SUIT. See Appeal, 1. INSOLVENT. See Security for Costs, 4. INVESTMENT IN LAND. 2 & 3 Vict. c. cvii.-The circumstance of a party having made three applications for the investment in land of different portions of the purchase-money of lands taken under an act of parliament, is not sufficient to induce the Court to refuse him the costs of a fourth application to invest the residue in the funds. The Merchant Tailors' Company, 34 L. O. 438. 566 Analytical Digest of Cases: Law of Costs.ak Where a mortgagee sued on the covenant for repayment on the mortgagee deed, and a judge at chambers made an order on him under the 7 Geo. 2, c. 20, to stay proceedings, and give up the deeds, &c., on payment of principal, interest, and costs of that suit, the Court discharged a rule for setting aside the order. Clay v. Collier, 35 L. O. 176. See Court of Requests. LUNATIC. tachment issued out of the Court of Chancery, The Court will direct the costs of the applica tion for such rule to be paid by the prisoner. Wenham v. Bowman, 35 L. O. 395. SECURITY FOR COSTS. 1. Official assignee.-The official assignee of a bankrupt or insolvent is entitled to be indemnified against the costs of an action brought in his name without his authority. Laws v. Bott, 16 M. & W. 300. Whitehead 1. " Case cited in the judgment; Hughes, 2 Dowl. P. C. 258. Re-conveying mortgaged estate. The costs of obtaining an order under 11 Geo. 4, and 1 W. 2. When plaintiff temporarily abandons his 4, c. 60, for committee of a lunatic mortgagee residence. The description as of his usual and to re-convey the mortgaged property, must be long-established place of residence by a plainpaid out of the lunatic's estate. Re Townsend, 34 L. O. 462. tiff who conceals the place of his actual abode. whilst under apprehension of being served with processes at law in matters unconnected with the suit, is not such a fraudulent misdescription as will entitle the defendant to move for se curity for costs; especially if it appears on the pleadings that the defendant is an accounting party to the plaintiff. Hurst v. Padwick, 35 L. Ó. 291. 3. Petition. The rule which requires a party resident out of the jurisdiction to give security for costs applies to a petition as well as to a bill. In re Dolman, 35 L. O. 170. A rule was made absolute for a new trial, without any mention of costs in the rule: Held, 4. Insolvent plaintiff.—In an action for the that the Master was right in allowing the suc-infringement of a patent, the Court will not cessful party all such costs of the first trial as were available for the second. And therefore, that he was right in allowing the costs of the briefs, subpoenas, and copies on the first trial; but not the fees on the briefs, or the consultation fees, or the costs of serving the subpoenas for the first trial. Lambert v. Lyddon, 4 D. & L. 400. OFFICIAL ASSIGNBES. See Security for Costs, 1. PAYMENT INTO COURT. To debt for goods sold, money lent, &c., the defendant pleaded, except as to 15s. parcel, &c., never indebted, and as to the said sum of 15s. payment into Court. The plaintiff joined issue on the first plea, and accepted the 15s. paid into Court. The issue was tried and found for the defendant: Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to all the costs relating to the 15s. paid into Court. Harrison v. Watt, 4 D. & L. 519; S. C., 16 M. & W. 316. Case cited in the judgment: Goodee v. Goldsmith, 2 M. & W. 202; 5 Dowl, 288. PRISONER. Attachment out of the Court of Chancery. grant a rule nisi calling upon an insolvent plaintiff to give security for costs, where the circumstances do not at least lead to a strong presumption that his assignee will adopt the action and proceed for the benefit of the estate. Stead v. Williams, 35 L. O. 395. 5. The defendant obtained an order for se curity for costs, on the ground that the plaintiff resided out of England. Before that order was complied with the defendant arrested the plaintiff in a cross action, and the latter went to prison, and then took out a summons to rescind the order for security, upon which an order was made suspending that order as long as the plaintiff remained in actual custody in the cross action, and giving the defendant in the present action 10 days' time to plead Some days after this the defendant in this action discharged the plaintiff out of custody, who at the expiration of the 10 days signed judgment for want of a plea, though he (the plaintiff) had not given security: Held, that the judgment was irregular, as the order for security for costs revived on the plaintiff's dis charge from prison. Todd v. Johnson, 35 L. O. 394. 6. Plaintiff's residence not sufficiently described. Security for costs must be given Where a prisoner in execution under an at-where the description of the plaintiff's re Analytical Digest of Cases. Chancery Cause Lists. 5672 sidence is insufficient. Sibbering v. Earl Bal-advised by counsel that he could not safely excarras, 35 L. O. 214. 10 WITNESS. Subsistence-money for a mariner detained to give evidence. In an action for breach of a charter-party, the trial having been postponed at the instance of the defendants, the plaintiff detained the captain of the vessel in this country for a period of 300 days, having been] amine him under the 1 W. 4, c. 22, the defendants having intimated an intention to call witnesses to impugn his conduct: Held, that, upon taxation of costs, the plaintiff was entitled to subsistence-money for the witness during the period of his detention. Evans v. Watson, 3 C. B. 327. · Case cited in the judgment: Berry v. Pratt, 1 B. & C. 276. Chancery Cause List.-Queen's Bench-Crown Paper. Robinson v. Sollory Turner v. Davis. Law v. Urlwins, exons. Knight v. Morrall Harrison v. Ditto Knight . Nugent Walker v. Marquis Camden, fur. dirs. and costs. Walker v. Stephens, 2 causes. Thomas v. Lewis. Waters v. Waters. Reddish v. Ferns. Black v. Gouldsmith Ditto v. Pearson. } Berry v. Attorney-Gen., fur. dirs. and petn. Bryan v. Twigg, exons., fur. dirs, and 4 petns. Staniland v. Willott. Cordy v. Wright, ditto. 22nd April, Lund v. Ash." Ditto, Lewis v. Bourne. Ditto, Rowe v. Rowe. Fuller v. Fuller, fur. dirs, and costs. Wroughton v. Colquhoun, exons. and fur. dirs. Short, Emery v. Phillips. Jones v. Meares. 26th April, Smith v. Wright. Gould v. Gill. Ditto v. Ditto 18th April, Ditto v. Sturgis. 18th April, Seaton v. Waller. Allen v. Leach, fur. dirs. and costs. Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants o Middleser.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Pancras, (with Hackney.) Middleser.-The Queen v. The Inhabiatnts of St. Pancras, (with St. Luke.) Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Monk Breton. Essex.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Witham. Surrey. The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Whitechapel. Cornwall.-The Queen v. Richard William Riley. West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The Churchwardens, &c. of Longwood. Devonshire.-The Queen v. Wm. Warren & others. (feoffees, &c.) Cambridgeshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Ashwell. Surrey.-The Queen v. Henry Chasemore. West Riding of Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Ovenden. West Riding of Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Aldborough. Cheshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Pott Shrigley. Cheshire. The Queen. The Inhabitants of Macclesfield. Durham.-The Queen v. Mayor, &c., of Sunder land. West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. James Preston and another. West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. Joseph Longbottom and another. Lancashire. The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Sheffield (Kirby and C.) Lancashire.The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Sheffield (Lye and family.) Colchester. The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Giles. Lancashire-The Queen v. The Overseers of Salford. England and Wales.-The Queen v. The Tithe Commissioners. West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The In. habitants of Halifax (with Alnwick.) Middlesex-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Harrow on the Hill. Kent.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Chatham. Worcestershire.The Queen v. J. M. G. Cheek and another. Wilts. The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Shepton Mallett. Cheshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Glossop. Warwickshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Michael, Coventry. :West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Halifax (with Rishworth.) Leicestershire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Margaret. -The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Surrey. Christchurch. Surrey. The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Rotherhithe. 569 Plymouth-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Andrew. Middlesex.—The Queen v. Hammersmith Bridge Company. Surrey. The Queen . The Inhabitants of Croydon. Wilts. Seend. - -The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Cambridgeshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Melton (Suffolk.) Lancashire.-The Queen v. Henry Whittles. West Riding, Yorkshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of Mirfield. Cambridgeshire.-The Queen v. The Inhabitants of St. Ebbe. |