References: [1851] EngR 898, (1851) 9 Hare 384, (1851) 68 ER 556
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Turner V-C
A, who was an equitable mortgagee by deposit of deeds ot property belonging to the estate of B, was paid off by C, on an agreement with the executors of B. (as their solicitor stated) that proceedings should be taken in A’s name to enforce the mortage security, and thereby to effect a sale of the whole or part of the mortgaged property; and the solicitor of the executors filed a claim for foreclosure in the name of A against the representatives of B. A denied that he had given authority to file the claim in his name, and moved that it might be taken off the file. Held that, there being only assertion against assertion, and the solicitor alone stating that the instructions were given in the presence of A, the case was to be governed by Allen v. Bone, and the claim was dismissed, with costs, to be paid by the solicitor.
That, in such a case, the Court could not adjudicate between the solicitor, by whom the claim was filed, and the Defendants, the representatives of B, by whom the instructions were given to file the claim in A’s name; and the Court left the solieitor to any legal remedy he might have against such parties.
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Griffiths -v- Evans CA ([1953] 2 All ER 1364, [1953] 1 WLR 1424)
The parties disputed the terms on which the solicitor had been engaged, and in particular as to the scope of the duty undertaken by and entrusted to the solicitor as regards advising the client.
Held: Where there is a dispute between a . .
