Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> John Taylor, Esq. - Jeffre - Ro. Bell v. John Richards and Others - A. Wood [1824] UKHL 2_Shaw_251 (4 June 1824)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1824/2_Shaw_251.html
Cite as: [1824] UKHL 2_Shaw_251
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 251↓
(1824) 2 Shaw 251
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, 1824.
2 d Division.
No. 36.
v.
Subject_Agent and Client — Retention. —
Circumstances in which (affirming the judgment of the Court of Session) a claim of retention by an agent of ten per cent on the sum recovered by him on behalf of clients, founded on an alleged agreement to that effect, was repelled; but a reservation made in his favour to claim any account of expenses which he might have against the clients.
This case was connected with those preceding, and arose out of the facts which are stated in No.34. Several of the creditors of the York Buildings Company, who had acceded to the Restrictive Agreement, and who had employed the late Mr Taylor as their agent, raised an action against the appellant, as Taylor's representative, to recover payment of certain funds alleged to belong to them, and intromitted with by Taylor; and also a process of multiplepoinding in name of the appellant. In defence lie contended, that the creditors, under the Restrictive Agreement, had consented that Taylor should be allowed ten per cent on the sums recovered by him. This the creditors denied, and the question therefore resolved into one of fact.
Page: 252↓
The Lord Ordinary and the Court found there was no evidence of the appellant's allegation, and repelled the claim; and on an appeal the House of Lords found, “That there is no agreement binding on the creditors, parties to the Restrictive Agreement, to allow the deceased John Taylor ten percent for commission and trouble on the amount of the sums awarded or paid to these creditors, defenders in the process of multiplepoinding: And with this finding it is ordered and adjudged, that the said interlocutor, so far as the same is complained of, be affirmed; but without prejudice to the claim of the pursuers in the process of multiplepoinding, to have credit in the accounting for the different sums, alleged by them to have been allowed to and retained by the said John Taylor, deceased, for his trouble and commission, upon his settling with the creditors respectively: And it is further ordered, that the cause be remitted back to the Court of Session, to do therein as shall be consistent with this judgment, and as shall be just.”
Solicitors: C. Berry— A. Mundell,—Solicitors.
(Ap. Ca. No. 50 .)