1001. in consideration of his not consigning any herrings of a particular description to the London market, and in particular to the house of Messrs. M. for the space of one year; and the plaintiff declared in assumpsit against the executors of J. S. who survived G. S.-Held, that the action was well brought against the executors of J. S. without describing him as the surviving partner of G. S. in the declaration. Calder v. Rutherford, E. 3 G. 4. Page 158 Where a count of a declaration in assumpsit against a carrier by water, alleged, that in consideration that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant, had caused to be shipped on board the defendant's vessel a quantity of wheat, to be carried to a certain place for freight to be therefore paid to the defendant, he undertook to carry the wheat safely, and deliver it for the plaintiff on a given day but it appeared that the defendant's undertaking to carry, was made before the whole of the wheat had been shipped on board his vessel:Held, that the count might be supported, although it was objected that the consideration for the promise was executory; -on the ground, that where an order is given to a carrier, antecedently to the delivery of goods, who assents to deal with them when delivered, in a particular manner, a duty is imposed on him on the receipt of the goods to deal with them according to the order previously given; and the law implies a promise by him to perform such duty. Streeter v. Horlock, T. 3 G. 4. 283 5. Where the plaintiff employed an auctioneer to sell an estate, and disputed the sum charged by him for his expences, when it was 1. An attorney who had ceased to practise for six years, may be readmitted, on payment of a nominal fine, without the arrears of duty, on an affidavit stating that he had discontinued to practise on account of his affairs having become embarrassed; that he had not practised in the interval, and that no misconduct could be imputed to him in his character of an attorney. Ex parte Cunningham, M. 3 G. 4. 410 2. Where an attorney was admitted in 1799, and regularly took out his certificates to 1814, but did not renew them for that and the following year, on account of his having been employed as a managing clerk to an attorney in the country, and re-commenced practising on his own account in 1817, having first obtained his certificate for 1816; the court allowed him to be readmitted on payment of a nominal fine, and the duty for the two years in which he had not taken out his certificates. Ex parte Sherwood, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. tures of certain creditors of a bankrupt to a petition to the Lord Chancellor for the taxation of a bill of costs, which petition was entitled "In Bankruptcy:"-Held, that the action was not maintainable. Ford v. Webb, E. 3 G. 4. Page 54 6. Where the plaintiff's attorney had been guilty of gross misconduct towards the defendant, in eonsequence of which, the Prothonotary refused to allow the plaintiff any costs: the Court refused a rule for him to review his taxation, although the defendant had taken out a summons to stay proceedings in the action on payment of debt and costs. Adams v. Staton, M. 3 G. 4. Page 493 3. So an attorney was re-admitted on payment of a nominal fine, where he had discontinued to practise on account of ill health. Ex parte Maliphant, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 495 4. It is the duty of an attorney to communicate personally with his clients, and give his attention to their concerns, so that they may reap the benefit of his advice and judgment:-Where therefore, an attorney had an office at a distance from his own residence, at which he carried on business by a clerk, to whom he allowed one third of the profits:-Held, that the former could not recover the amount of a bill of costs, delivered by him to the defendant for business done by his clerk, in carrying on a suit; as the defendant had never seen or communicated with the plaintiff on the subject; and it seems that the plaintiff could not sue alone; as by his allowing his clerk to participate in the profits, it amounted to a partnership. Hopkinson v. Smith, T. 3 G. 4. 5. Petitions in bankruptcy are not proceedings in Chancery: Where therefore, in an action of debt to recover penalties under the statute 2 Geo. 2. c. 23, the declaration charged the defendant with having acted as a solicitor in the Court of Chancery, and carried on proceedings there, he not having been admitted and enrolled a solicitor of that Court; and it appeared that the defendant (a certificated conveyancer, but not an 9. attorney,) had been employed by the solicitors under a commission, to attend the obtaining the signa 237 64 365 7. The Court refused to strike an attorney off the roll, on an affidavit which merely stated that he had been struck off the roll of the Court of King's Bench;-as it should have been shewn for what cause he was struck off the roll of the latter Court, viz. whether for contempt, mal-practice, or misdemeanor; and an application for that purpose cannot be made on the last day of Term. In re Hague, E. 3 G. 4. Where a charge was made by affidavit, against an attorney of the Court, amounting to an indictable offence, the Court refused to call upon him summarily to answer the affidavit, but left the party to prosecute: but they granted a rule calling on him to deliver over deeds and papers in his hands to the then attorney of the complaining party. Short, Demandant; Pratt, Tenant, M. 3 G. 4. 424 8. Where it appeared by affidavit that a client had given his attorney two bills of exchange, for the purpose of getting them discounted, and that he did so, but applied the proceeds to his own use; the Court granted a rule nisi that the attorney might pay over the amount to the client, or deliver up the bills to him; although he was not employed in any suit at the time the application was made. Ex parte Hall, in re Knight, M. 3 G. 4. Page 437 10. The Court refused to strike an attorney off the roll, on an affidavit which stated that he had not served a regular clerkship ;-as he had been opposed by counsel before a Judge on the same ground, at the time he obtained his admission; and as no misconduct or mal-practice had been imputed to him subsequently to such admission. In re Page, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 11. Where the plaintiff was employed as a solicitor to carry on proceedings in Chancery, after which the defendant married one of the parties to the suit, and eventually received a proportionate part of the property in dispute, in right of his wife, under an order of that Court: -Held, that he was liable to pay the plaintiff a proportion of his bill of costs after taxation by the Master; although there had been uo retainer of the plaintiff by the defendant, and although the bill had not been delivered to the latter, but to a co-defendant, who had suffered judgment by default. Gray v. Wainman, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 572 467 12. The Court will not direct an attorney's bill to be referred to taxation after payment, unless it can be impeached on the grounds of gross overcharge, fraud, or mistake, or some specific charge, which must be distinctly pointed out; and although the application was made by a cestui que trust, who had a direct interest in the subject matter for which the expences in the bill were incurred, yet it having been previously paid by the representative of a surviving trustee, acting under a deed of trust for sale,-the Court refused to interfere. Wilkinson, Demandant; Foster, Vouchee, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. Page 496 18. An agent has only a lien for his agency charges in the particular cause in which he is employed, and not for the general balance due to him from the attorney who employs him. Where, therefore, the plaintiff's attorney was indebted to the plaintiff on a bond, in a sum exceeding his costs in the cause, and was also indebted to his agents on a general account :Held, that the latter could not retain as against the plaintiff, more than their charges for agency in the cause they had conducted for him; and the plaintiff having died, the Court ordered that the damages and costs recovered by him in an action against the defendants, should be paid over to his executors, on payment of the sum due to the agents of such attorney in the particular cause. White v. Royal Exchange Assurance Company, T.3 G. 4. ATTORNMENT. See EVIDENCE, 4. REPLEVIN, 2. AUCTION. See EXECUTORS, 2. AUCTIONEER. See ASSUMPSIT, 5. EVIDENCE, 6. AVOWANT. 249 AVOWRY. See REPLEVIN, 2. AWARD. 1. Where the plaintiff obtained a verdict subject to a reference, and the arbitrator awarded in favour of the plaintiff, but made a material mistake in his award, when the plaintiff applied to the Court that it might be referred back to the arbitrator to re-consider his award; but the defendant would not accede to that proposition; on which the Court ordered the rule of reference to be discharged, and the award set aside, and the plaintiff having taken the cause down for a second trial, and again obtained a verdict; -Held, that he was entitled to the costs of both trials. Payne v. Bailey, E. 3 G. 4. Page 147 2. Where a cause was referred to arbitration under an order of a judge at Nisi Prius, by the consent of the parties, one of whom revoked his submission before the award was published; notwithstanding which, the arbitrator afterwards made his award ;-the Court set it aside, the order having been previously made a rule of Court. Clapham v. Higham, M. 3 G. 4. 403 3. The Court will not set aside an award, on the ground that the arbitrator has been mistaken in the law, unless the principles of law upon which he has decided, appear upon the face of the award itself. Where, therefore, the question was, whether fees for the interment of bodies in the chancel of a church, were payable to the rector or vicar, and the arbitrator awarded that the latter was entitled to them, the Court refused to set 2. Where the plaintiff, having a joint cause of action against five several defendants, sued out bailable process against one alone, under which he was arrested, and put in bail, and afterwards sued out serviceable process against the other four, and all the defendants were named in the affidavit to hold to bail, and a declaration was delivered in which they were all included; but the bail-piece was taken in the name of the defendant only against whom bailable process had issued; the Court refused to enter an exoneretur on the bail-piece, as there was no variance between the process and declaration; on the grounds that the plaintiff might sue out bailable process against one defendant, and serviceable against others; that four only could be included in one writ; that the bailpiece must agree with the writ under which the one defendant was arrested, and that the affidavit of debt corresponded with the declaration which had been delivered as against all. Christie v. Walker, M. 3 G. 4. 3. An attorney's clerk may be put 362 in as bail, for the purpose of surrendering a defendant, but he cannot justify as such. Hill v. Thompson, M. 3 G. 4. Page 403 4. Where the principal offered to surrender in discharge of his bail, and an agreement was afterwards entered into between his attornies and the plaintiffs' agent, that the surrender should be dispensed with for six weeks, on the terms of the bail continuing liable, which agreement they were ignorant of at the time, as well as that their principal had offered to surrender; but they afterwards consented to their liability continuing on the terms mentioned in the agreement; and the principal in the meantime became bankrupt, and obtained his certificate, and the plaintiff afterwards proceeded against the bail without notice :Held, that they were discharged; on the grounds that their liability under their recognizance ceased, time having been given their principal to surrender without their consent or authority in the first instance; and that it could not be revived by their subsequent ratification of such agreement to continue liable, as they had not been informed that their principal had previously offered to surrender himself in their discharge. West v. Ashdown, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 566 BAIL BOND. : 1. If a bail bond has been irregularly assigned, the affidavit to set aside the proceedings thereon, must be entitled in the original action; but if it has been assigned regularly, then in the action on the bail bond. Ham v. Philcox, H. 3 & 4 G. 4. 521 2. The plaintiff having ruled the sheriff to bring in the body, can |