Br COOK v. THE EARL OF ROSSLYN. (a) Re HOOK (Solicitor). Rosslyn, Among included 1861. June 3rd. the whole ground for relief rested allegation of a threat and in of the defendants to bring tention by one an action, was dismissed; and the plaintiff's an indenture of settlement, dated the 10th of A bill of interNovember, 1829, executed on the marriage of Bethell pleader, where Walrond, Esq., with Lady Janet St. Clair Erskine, certain property was conveyed and assigned to the de- on a false fendant, Lord Loughborough, afterwards Earl of upon the trusts in the said indenture mentioned. the property comprised in the settlement was the house No. 8, Clifford Street, Bond Street. Lord Rosslyn demised the house for a term with leasing powers to Mr. Walrond, to secure the sum of 32007. and interest. On the 26th of September, 1848, Mr. Walrond demised the house for a term of years, which had subsequently become vested in the plaintiff. In October, 1859, the term for the original demise, which was vested in the mortgagee Walrond, was assigned with a view to surrender it, and it was surrendered by Mr. Walrond, and thereby became merged in the inheritance. Lord Rosslyn, therefore, thereby became entitled to demand the rent. solicitor, who filed the bill, being proved to be aware gation was groundless, it that the alle was ordered, on the petition of one of the defendants, for whom he also acted as solicitor, that all items in his bill of costs in respect of the On the 8th of November, 1859, Messrs. White, interpleader Broughton & White, the Earl of Rosslyn's solicitors, wrote to the plaintiff as follows: "We have received instructions from Lord Rosslyn to give you notice that, under and by virtue of an indenture of settlement, dated the 10th of November, 1829, and made between Bethell Walrond, Esq., of the first part, and Lady Janet Walrond (then Lady Janet St. Clair Erskine) of the second part, the said Earl of Rosslyn (then Lord Loughborough) and Francis William Russell, Esq., of the third part, he is the person entitled to receive the rents of the house and premises No. 8, Clifford Street; and the said Earl of Rosslyn requires you not to (a) See ante, vol. i. 167. suit be disallowed. 1861. COOK v. ROSSLYN. pay the said rent except upon his receipt. Any payment made except upon the receipt of the said Earl of Rosslyn THE EARL OF Will be made at your peril, as his lordship hereby distinctly informs you that any such payment will be disallowed by him." Re HOOK. Statement. On the receipt of this letter, Mr. Hook wrote demanding in what character Lord Rosslyn demanded the rent, and received the following reply : "Lord Rosslyn claims the rent of the house in Clifford Street, occupied by Mr. Cook, as being the person entitled to the immediate reversion expectant on Mr. Cook's tenancy, if Mr. Cook's tenancy has been legally created." In answer to other letters, the following answer was returned : "Lord Rosslyn has no alternative but to act as he does; and no Court, with the circumstances before them, could possibly censure him for doing his duty. Lord Rosslyn, being legal owner of the house, does not consider it necessary to file a bill or obtain a receiver; and we have now to apply to you, as representing Mr. Cook, for the payment of the rent due to Lord Rosslyn. Unless it is paid within seven days, we shall deem it our duty to have recourse to legal proceedings." Mr. Hook, shortly after the date of this letter, as Mr. Walrond's solicitor, filed a bill against the Earl of Rosslyn and Mr. Walrond, alleging that Lord Rosslyn threatened to take proceedings to recover the rent; and also, in paragraph 12, that Mr. Walrond threatened and intended to commence and prosecute an action against the plaintiff Cook for the recovery of a quarter's rent, due at Christmas last, and praying that the two defendants might be ordered to interplead together. The amount of the rent was thereupon paid into court. Notice of motion for an injunction was given against both defendants, but the cause was ultimately ordered to stand over. In February, 1861, an order was made, on the application of Mr. Walrond, to tax Mr. Cook's costs against him in the case of Cook v. The Earl of Rosslyn, Subsequently Mr. Walrond presented a petition in the cause, praying that, in taxing the said costs, all items charged in respect of costs, charges, disbursements, and other matters in the said cause, might be disallowed. In support of the petition, it was alleged that the statement made in the 12th paragraph of the bill was untrue to the knowledge of Mr. Hook. The petition stated that, from March, 1859, to May, 1860, the petitioner employed Mr. Hook as his solicitor, and that he ceased to be his solicitor on payment of 3001. into court for costs. When Mr. Hook ceased to be his solicitor, he said nothing about his being the solicitor of Mr. Cook. That when Mr. Cook received the notice, in November, 1859, from Lord Rosslyn's solicitors, Mr. Hook wrote to the petitioner, stating the receipt of the notice, and that Lord Rosslyn was determined to persecute him (there having been differences in the petitioner's family, in which Lord Rosslyn had taken part), and that Mr. Cook had already been put to an expense of 771., for which amount he intended to bring an action against Lord Rosslyn. That the petitioner being too unwell to write, Mr. Henry Walrond, his son, replied to the letter. That Mr. Hook again wrote, stating that Cook had been advised by counsel to file a bill against Lord Rosslyn, in order to protect himself from liability; and on the 16th of January again wrote as follows to Mr. Walrond, jun. :-" Cook has filed his bill of interpleader. Lord Rosslyn contends that, as he has paid off the mortgage, all interest that the mortgagee had is now vested in him. I imagine he now sets up this claim for the purpose of annoying your father, and to compel him to come into White's terms. It is remarkable, that White says that he will give this notice on the part of Lord Rosslyn. Shall I appear for your father to the bill, and make his defence?" That Mr. 1861. Cook v. THE EARL OF Statement. 1861. Cook v. THE EARL OF Argument. Henry Walrond wrote in reply to say that he was to appear, if necessary, and added, "Would it not be better to tell Cook not to proceed yet, as my father will not proceed against him for the rents, and he does not understand that White has yet demanded them." That Mr. Hook did not communicate to the plaintiff Cook what was stated by Mr. Henry Walrond as to no proceedings being taken against him for the rent, and shortly afterwards that Mr. Walrond came to London and called upon Mr. Hook, who told him that Cook's (the plaintiff's) case must fail. At this time, Mr. Hook was acting as the plaintiff's solicitor, and the bill had been filed. The petitioner alleged that no copy of the bill had been sent; otherwise from the bill the petitioner must have known that Mr. Hook was acting for Mr. Cook. The petitioner had no copy of the bill. The petitioner alleged that Mr. Hook had acted for both parties, and gave notice of motion for an injunction against Mr. Walrond on behalf of Mr. Cook; while for Mr. Walrond he instructed counsel to oppose the motion. A change of solicitors then took place, and Mr. Turner from that time became Mr. Walrond's solicitor. On Saturday, the 9th of February, Mr. Walrond was walking in Bond Street, when a person who was then a stranger to him, but who turned out to be Mr. Cook, crossed the street, and spoke to him on the subject of the litigation. It was then discovered, for the first time, to what extent Mr. Hook had been acting for both parties. The petition and the cause now came on to be heard. Mr. Malins and Mr. Downing Bruce, in support of the petition, contended that Mr. Hook was wholly without authority in instituting the suit of interpleader, as he must have known there was no possible defence to Lord Rosslyn's claim. The statement in the 12th paragraph of the bill, which was the only allegation to support the bill, Mr. Hook must have known to be untrue. Even if he had inadvertently put the bill on the file, there was no excuse for going on with the suit; and, under such circumstances, it would be most unjust to throw the expenses which had been so recklessly incurred on the petitioner. With regard to Mr. Cook, it was his misfortune to have been badly advised. Mr. Bacon and Mr. Hardy contended that it was proved that at one time Mr. Walrond did threaten to take legal proceedings. It might well be that this originated in a family quarrel; but it would be most unfair to make Mr. Hook responsible for the consequences of the unreasonable conduct of the parties. Mr. Greene and Mr. Jones Bateman appeared for Lord Rosslyn, and objected to bear any part of the costs. They also asked that the fund in court might be paid to Lord Rosslyn, whose title was unimpeachable. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR: 1861. Cook V. THE EARL OF Argument. The bill alleges, that Mr. Bethell Walrond has Judgment. threatened to commence and prosecute an action for the recovery of a quarter's rent due on the 25th of December. That allegation is disputed; and, therefore, unless the plaintiff can prove the truth of it, there is no case of interpleader at all. He has not only failed in proving it, but on the very face of the bill it would appear that, if any such threat was made, it was a threat so idle that a serious question would have remained for decision, whether enough was stated to sustain the suit. The bill states distinctly that in October, 1859, there had been an assignment of the term vested in the mortgagee for the purpose of surrendering it; and it was surrendered. According to the plaintiff's case, he was still required by the mortgagee to pay rent to him, Mr. Walrond; and |