1818. CLEGHORN v. DESANGES. The plaintiff was nonsuited; but with liberty to him to move to have a verdict entered, either for the debt, or nominal damages. Vaughan, Serjt., and W. E. Taunton, for the plaintiff. Lens, Serjt., for the defendants. In the King's Bench the allowance of a writ of error is of itself a supersedeas; and the service of the allowance is only material to bring the party into contempt, if he afterwards pro Iceed to sue out execution.Jaques v. Nixon, 1 T. R. 279. Capron v. Archer, 1 Burr. 340. Perkins v. Woolaston, 1 Salk. 322. See also Thorpe v. Beer,. 2 Barnew. and Ald. 373. CASES ARGUED AND DECIDED AT NISI PRIUS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, At the Sittings in and after Hilary Term, SECOND SITTINGS IN TERM, AT WESTMINSTER. WATKINS, Assignee of MOODY, a Bankrupt, v. Friday, Jan. 29. In trover for a landan, proof of a demand and non-de It appeared that, some time after the act of of the landan bankruptcy was committed, the bankrupt sold to the defendant the landau in question, for the sum of 251., and which sale the plaintiff by this action sought to rescind. Before the commencement of the action, a written demand of the landau, addressed to the defendant, was left at the defend livery in purevidence of a suance of it, is conversion. 1819. WATKINS v. WOOLLEY. ant's house; but it did not appear that he had expressly refused to deliver it up. Vaughan, Serjt., for the defendant, contended that there was not sufficient evidence of a conversion. The landau came lawfully into his possession; and, therefore, not only a demand of it, but a refusal on his part to comply with that demand, must be proved. Mere non-compliance with a demand cannot be such a tortious act as to establish a conversion. RICHARDSON, J. ruled that the demand of the landau, and the non-delivery of it in pursuance of that demand, was evidence of a conversion. The plaintiff had a verdict. Lens, Copley, Serjts., and E. Lawes, for the plaintiff. Vanghan, Serjt., and Comyn, for the defendant. See Severin v. Keppel, 4 Esp. mouth v. Boyer, 1 Ves. jun. 424. 1819. SITTING DAY AFTER TERM AT WESTMINSTER. WARREN, Gent., one, &c. v. CUNNINGHAM. A Saturday, SSUMPSIT on an attorney's bill; plea, the Delivery of an general issue. attorney's bill to the attorney of the party to be charged sufficient, if the party himself attend the taxation, or the bill be shewn to have The principal question related to the sufficiency of the delivery of the bill: it appeared that it had been left for the defendant at the office of a Mr. Deykes, who, at the time of the delivery, acted as come to his his attorney; but the defendant personally attended the taxation. The defendant was an uncertificated attorney. Lens, Serjt., and Selwyn, for the defendant, contended, that the delivery was insufficient. The stat. 2 Geo. 2. c. 23. s. 23. incapacitates an attorney from suing upon his bill, unless it " shall have been delivered unto the party or parties to be charged therewith, or left for him, her, or them, at his, her, or their dwelling-house, or last place of abode." This statute has always received a strict and literal construction. In the case of Hill v. Humphreys, 2 Bos. and Pull. 343., it was held that the delivery of an attorney's bill at the counting house of the defendant was not sufficient, because the counting-house could not be considered a dwelling-house within hands. 1819. WARREN v. HAM. the meaning of the statute. Neither is the requisition of the statute complied with by a mere delivery of the bill to the defendant, unless it also be CUNNING left with him. Brooks v. Mason, 1 H. Bl. 290. Crowder v. Shee, 1 Campb. 437. Here the bill was left at the office of a person, who acted in the capacity of attorney to the defendant, which is not sufficient, the words of the statute being imperative, and a different mode of delivery being prescribed from that which has been adopted. Vaughan, Serjt., and Platt, contrà. The statute 2 Geo. 2. c. 23. does not in this case apply; for the provisions of that act are, by a subsequent statute (12 Geo. 2. c. 13. s. 6.) repealed, as far as regards actions where both the plaintiff and the defendant are attornies. And it matters not whether the parties were attornies at the time when the debt was contracted, if when the action is brought they are so. Ford v. Maxwell, 2 H. Bl. 589. But, independently of this objection, the delivery was sufficient within the provisions of the stat. 2 Geo. 2. c. 23. It suffices if the bill come to the hands of the party to be charged, which here it has been proved to have done. In Vincent v. Slaymaker, 12 East. 372. where there was a change of Attornies, it was decided by the Court of King's Bench, that a delivery of the bill to the second attorney was such a compliance with the statute, as to enable the first attorney to maintain an action upon it. DALLAS, C. J.-The first thing to be looked to is the statute, and the precise words of it. The sta |