WHYTE E. T. 1846. "until the expiration of one month after such attorney or solicitor, Queen's Bench. or executor, administrator or assignee of such attorney or solicitor, "shall have delivered unto the party to be charged therewith, or "sent by the post to or left for him at his counting-house, office of "business, dwelling-house or last known place of abode, a bill of such "fees, charges and disbursements." V. CHICHESTER We say these costs were incurred for business done in Ireland, and that section only applies to cases where the business is done in England, and against parties domiciled there. The Court will not notice the mode of doing business in a foreign country. In 2 Saund. 121 c, it is said: "It is now settled that so much "of the law of the foreign country where a personal contract is "made, as affects the rights and merits of the contract, all that "relates ad litis decisionem is adopted by our English Courts from "the foreign country; but so much of the law as affects the remedy "only, all that relates ad litis ordinationem is taken from our own "law, as being the lex fori of that country where the action is "brought; and in the interpretation of this rule, the time of limita❝tion of the action falls within the latter division, and is governed "by the lex fori and not by lex loci contractus." Gilmore and S. B. Millar, contra. The contract here is an English one, and is to be governed by the law of England. The mode of suing must depend on the law of the country where the action is brought, and on the practice of the Courts, which differs materially.-[CRAMPTON, J. The intention of the statute was, to confine its applicability to suits in English Courts. We say, a condition precedent is imposed by the statute, and until it be complied with no right of action exists, and if so, then all the cases applicable to foreign contracts apply. It is laid down in Story's Conflict of Laws, s. 260 a, "Where the "forms of public instruments are regulated by the laws of a country, 'they must be strictly followed to entitle them to be valid elsewhere; "as for example, if a protest of a bill of exchange made in another "State is required by the laws of that State to be under seal, a "protest not under seal will not be regarded as evidence of the * This enactment differs from the statute in force in this country, 7 G. 2, c. 14 (analogous to 2 G. 2, c. 23 (Eng.), the above enactment extending to all fees, charges and disbursements for business done by an attorney or solicitor, whether "arising at a suit at law or equity, or not." It therefore extends to conveyancing, and has been held to apply to all business, though done before the passing of the Act: Arch. Pr. 86, (8th ed.) Queen's Bench. WHYTE "dishonour of the bill;" and in section 261, "the ground of this E. T. 1846. "doctrine as commonly stated is, that every person contracting in a "country is understood to submit himself to the law of the place, "and silently to assent to its action upon his contract: Huber v. “Steiner (a). BLACKBURNE, C. J. The objection made in this case is, that the plaintiff did not serve his bill of costs one month before the bringing of the present action; and this objection will depend upon this:-If the Act of Parliament 6 & 7 Vic. c. 73, regulate the contract and make the service of notice (thereby directed) essential, then the plaintiff cannot sue without proving such service; if, on the other hand, this statute only regulate the remedy, then he was not bound so to do. It cannot be doubted that, supposing this statute had never been passed, this being an action for business done for the plaintiff at his special instance and request, the plaintiff would be entitled to succeed. Has then the statute made any alteration? No such thing; the right of action remains just as it was; but the statute says, you shall not pursue your remedy until you perform a certain condition, which has no connection with the cause of action, but is a regulation confined to the right to sue. For these reasons we are clearly of opinion the action is maintainable. CRAMPTON, J. The statute appears to me to apply to attornies and solicitors practising in England and Wales solely. The second section speaks of the Courts in which a solicitor is to practise, and the certificate required for that purpose; and section 37 (the one now relied on), contains several regulations as to the conduct of an attorney, besides that which speaks of the service of the bill of costs, and it speaks of the Judges of the English Courts only, and the business done in those Courts, and the manner in which the taxation is to be conducted in them. It would seem, therefore, from these provisions, that this statute never intended to impose on an English solicitor the necessity of serving this notice in Ireland; for this country is not included within the regulations to which he must be subject if he bring his action in any of the Courts in England. Cause allowed with costs.* V. CHICHESTER • The Reporters are indebted to ANDREW VANCE, Esq., for a copy of the pleadings in the case of Guinness v. Allen, which was an action brought by an Irish solicitor against a solicitor residing in London, for business done in an equity suit E. T. 1846. in the Court of Chancery in Ireland. The case has not been reported in any of Queen's Bench. the English Reports, and as it involves precisely the same question as in the above case, and was decided on demurrer; a note of it is subjoined : – GUINNESS v. ALLEN. An Irish soli- THE declaration was filed by the plaintiff in the Queen's Bench. It citor suing in England a sowas in form an action of assumpsit, and contained a count for £500 licitor domi- for work and labour, care and diligence of the plaintiff, as attorney ciled there, for business done and solicitor in that part of her Majesty's dominions called Ireland, in Ireland, is done and performed at the request of the defendant, in defending and serve his bill soliciting divers causes, &c., and for fees due in respect thereof, and of costs one for work and attendance bestowed in the drawing, copying and engrossing conveyances, deeds, &c., for the defendant. It also contained the common count for work and labour, and the money not bound to month before bringing the action. counts. To this declaration the defendant pleaded, amongst others, the following plea:— "And for a further plea in this behalf as to the said declaration, so far as it relates to the said four several sums of £500, "each firstly, secondly, fourthly and sixthly mentioned in the said "declaration, the defendant, by like leave of the Court here says "that the plaintiff ought not to have or maintain his aforesaid "action thereof against him; because, he says, that at the several "times when the said four several sums of £500 in the introductory part of this plea mentioned became due to the plaintiff as in the "declaration mentioned, it was and from thence hitherto hath been, "and still is the law established in that part of the United Kingdom "of Great Britain and Ireland called Ireland, that no attorney or "solicitor of any of his Majesty's Four Courts in Ireland aforesaid "should commence or maintain any action or suit for the recovery "of any fees, charges or disbursements at law or in equity until the 'expiration of one month or more after such attorney or solicitor "respectively should have 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, a bill of such fees, charges "and disbursements, written in a common legible hand and in "the English tongue (except law terms and names of writs), and in "words at length (except times and sums) and subscribed with the "proper hand of such attorney or solicitor respectively. And the "defendant further says that the said plaintiff, at the several times "when the said four several sums became due as aforesaid, was and "still is an attorney and solicitor of one of the said Four Courts, "and that the said four several sums became and are due from the "defendant, being the party to be charged therewith, to the plaintiff as such attorney and solicitor as aforesaid, as and for such fees, 66 "charges and disbursements in equity as are meant and intended to General demurrer to this plea, and joinder in demurrer. The point insisted on by the demurrer was, that the law established in Ireland, as set forth in the last plea, was not binding on a plaintiff suing in the Courts in England, and could not be relied on as a defence by a defendant who, for aught that appeared in that plea, was domiciled in England. The demurrer was argued by J. Campbell, for the plaintiff, who contended that the delivery of a bill was not the contract or the construction of the contract, but merely touched the remedy; and that as the defendant was not domiciled in Ireland, there was no ground for saying that the Irish law applied, and that the English law, respecting the delivery of a bill, could not apply to a case where the business was done in another country. Williams v. Jones (a), British Linen Company v. Drummond (b), De La Vega v. Vianna (c), Shaw v. Harvey (d), were referred to. Per Curiam. Let judgment be entered for the plaintiff. (a) 13 East, 439. (c) 1 B. & Ad. 284. (b) 10 B. & C. 903. (d) 1 M. & W. 526. E. T. 1846. GUINNESS บ. ALLEN. T. T. 1847. Common Pleas. June 4, 8, 9. To a habeas corpus, direct shal of the Four Courts Marshalsea, a return, setting Ex parte HIGGINS, A Prisoner in the Four Courts Marshalsea. (Common Pleas.) On the 4th of June, Butt obtained an order for the issuing of a writ ed to the Mar- of habeas corpus to the Marshal of the Four Courts Marshalsea, in order that he should bring up the body of Luke Higgins a prisoner in the custody of the Marshal. In obedience to that writ, on the 8th of June the prisoner was brought up, but was remanded to the 9th of June, in order that the return might be amended; on the from the Court last-mentioned day he was again brought up. The writ was in the the Sheriff of usual form; the Marshal's return was as follows: forth a writ of attachment of Chancery to the city of Dub lin, command "I, Joseph Denis Mullen, Marshal of the Marshalsea of the Four ing him to at- "Courts, Dublin, certify and return to the Right Honorable John tach H., in order to answer "Doherty at the Queen's Courts, in the writ to this schedule annexed, as well touch- "that before the within writ came to me, that is to say, on the 5th ing a contempt against him, which writ was marked for the monies; and also setting forth the She riff's warrant to his special that the arrest 66 as such mat- day of November in the year of our Lord 1846, there issued forth ters as should "of her Majesty's high Court of Chancery in Ireland, and under the be objected "seal thereof, her Majesty's writ of attachment against the said Luke Higgins, which said writ followeth in these words :-' Chancery levy of certain "attachment pursuant to order. Victoria, by the grace of God of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, defender of the faith and soforth: To the Sheriff of the county of the city of Dublin, greeting. We command you that pursuant to an bailiffs for the arrest of H.; "order of our High Court of Chancery of Ireland, made in causes and alleging "there depending between Luke Higgins plaintiff, Mary Anne took place in place in "Mitchell and others defendants; same plaintiff, John Templeton "defendant; same plaintiff, William Robert Wills defendant; bear"ing date the 5th day of December 1845, you attach Luke Higgins, "so that you may have him before us in our said Court of Chancery "on the 25th day of November instant, to answer as well touching "a contempt committed against us, as such matters as shall be then turn of the writ and there objected against him; and herein fail not under the and after the passing of the "penalty of £100. Witness our Lieutenant-General and General 95; and also setting forth the return of the writ; and certifying that after the arrest the Sheriff did, in due form of law, commit H. to the Four Courts Marshalsea, there to remain in safe custody until he should pay the said monies marked at foot of the writ, or until he should be otherwise discharged by due course of law, since which committal the Marshal, in aid and on behalf of the Sheriff and by his command, detained H. in custody under the authority of the writ. Held, to be a good return, although not averring that the committal was in writing. pursuance of the writ, and after the delivery thereof, and after the issuing of the warrant, and before the re 5 & 6 Vic. c. |