9911796707
TMI Blog1898 (4) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding the decree have been taxed as between attorney and client, and ₹ 2,017-13-6 have been allowed on that taxation. Subsequent costs to the amount of ₹ 613 have also been incurred. From time to time payments on account have been made, which leave ₹ 914-4-9 still due from the plaintiff to Babu Mohini Mohun Chatterji on account of his costs, besides subsequent costs which are still untaxed. 2. In execution of the decree in the suit certain Immovable property was attached and advertised to be sold on the 10th March of this year. 3. In the meantime, however, the defendant had settled with the plaintiff personally without the intervention of the attorneys on either side, and an application was made on the 10th March for stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... honest intention of ending the litigation, and not with any design to deprive the attorney of his costs; and, secondly, no payment can be made under the compromise to the prejudice of the attorney's claim after notice of it. has been given to the person by whom the payment is made. 6. These principles appear to pie to be the clear result .of the authorities in England; and founded, as they are, on justice, equity and good conscience, I see no reason why they should not apply in this country. Now the applicant on this occasion claims that both conditions to which I have referred exist, though it is clear it would suffice for his purpose, if he can establish either of them. The facts on which he relies as establishing his position by vir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any practice justifying such a procedure as is sought to be used on this occasion. In addition he has referred to two cases: one the case of Domun v. Emaum Ally (1881) I.L.R. 7 Cal 401 and the other the case of Mahommed Zohuruddem v. Mahommed Noorooddeen (1893) I.L.R. 21 Cal. 85. 11. The first of the two cases seems to me to have no application to the matter now under consideration. It simply refers to the question whether, on summary application, an order could be made directing a party to pay his attorney the costs of suit when taxed. It was held that such an order could not be made. That is a wholly different case from the present. 12. In the same way the case of Mahommed Zohuruddeen v. Mahommed Noorooddeen (1893) I.L.R. 21 Cal. 85 app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the present case the attorney has given, in the clearest terms that could have been used, notice that he did claim a lien for his costs of the suit. 16. Another point urged by Mr. Woodroffe was this: He contended that inasmuch as part of the aggregate claim consists of costs paid to a prior attorney, no lien to that extent can be claimed, and in support of that proposition he referred to the case of Christian v. Field (1842) 2 Har 177. That case is not an authority for the broad proposition in support of which it was cited. 17. Be this however as it may, the state of facts on which the argument is based has no existence here, for I do not find that the unpaid balance of costs is in any way made up of the amount paid by Babu Mohini Mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
