Recompence claimed by a Surgeon. - Tutor. - Sheriff-substitute. - Commissioner for taking Oaths. - Political Agent. - Recompense claimed from a Trustee.
John Bulman, Attorney, v. Alexander Earl of Galloway
Date: 16 January 1766 Case No. No 43.
Attorney acting as a political agent, not entitled to a recompense for his trouble, without a previous bargain.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
John Bullman, as administator of the late James Aitkenson, attorney in Morpeth, brought an action against the Earl of Galloway and his son Lord Garlies, setting forth, That Lord Garlies having, in spring 1760, offered himself as a candidate to represent the borough of Morpeth in Parliament, he and his father had employed the late Mr Aitkenson, attorney there, to manage the election, as was vouched by many letters from them to him, which he accordingly did, with great zeal and ability, and the wished success; and, therefore, concluding for L. 500, as a recompence to Mr Aitkenson, who had dedicated his whole time to that business, from June 1760 to April 1761.
Pleaded in defence; Though Mr Aitkenson's activity and address were of great use to the defenders, yet there was no foundation for this action; Mr Aitkenson was not even employed as an attorney, nor had he acted as such. A noble family in the neighbourhood of Morpeth had long had the command of that borough; but, at the last general election, an opposition was formed, into which Mr Aitkenson keenly entered. His conduct proceed, or must be presumed to have proceed, from public spirit or political views; and he could no more have claimed a pecuniary recompence from the defenders, than any other person who exerted himself and his interest in their behalf on the occasion. A political agent can have no claim for such recompence without a previous bargain, escept as to his debursements. What Mr Aitkenson laid out, has been paid to the pursuer a year ago, when he settled accounts with the defender, which shews his then sense of the matter, and was a virtual discharge; and Mr Aitkenson never made any demand for a consideration for himself, nor did he make anyentry in his books as if any such had been due him. All he expected was, that Lord Garlies would use his interest to procure him an office in chancery.
The Court was clear, That a political agent has no claim to a recompence for his trouble, without a previous bargain; and therefore.
‘The Lords sustained the defences, and assoilzied.’
Act. Dav Dalrymple.Alt. Rae.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 219. Fac. Col. No 32. p. 55.
