Savage v James

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 06 May 1875
• Date: 06 May 1875
• Court: Chancery Division (Ireland)

V. C. Court.

SAVAGE

and

JAMES.

Kelly v. KellyIR 5 Ir. Eq. 34.

In re Bayly's EstateUNK 12 Ir. Ch. 315.

M'Ghee v. Mahon Fl. & K. 93.

Ex parte ClelandELR L. R. 2 Ch. App. 808.

Twynam v. PorterELR L. R. 11 Eq. 181.

Crosbie v. Molloy 2 Jo. 588.

Shaw v. NealeENR 20 Beav. 157.

Barnesley v. PowellENR Amb. 102.

Chattels personal subject of suit — Lien for costs of Plaintiff's solicitor.

ter:. IX.] EQUITY SERIES. 357 which has been passed in that Court cannot be varied on motion ; Probate. and I conceive that the practice of this Court is analogous to the 1874. practice of the Court of Chancery in that respect. A case has been O'EELLT cited in which a decree of the Court of Probate in England was BROWNE, varied by Sir C. Cresswell upon motion-namely, the case of Bewsher v. Williams (1). Whether the decree in that case had actually been passed or not does not appear ; but, however that may be, considering that none of the cases bearing on the subject were cited before Sir C. Cresswell, even assuming that the decree had actually been passed in Bewsher v. Williams, I am not prepared to follow that case as an authority. This application must be refused, and, I regret to say, with costs. Solicitors for Henrietta Browne, the widow : Messrs. Meade 8f Solicitor for the Plaintiff in the first cause : Mr. P. J. Conway. Solicitors for the Defendant in the first cause : Messrs. Meldon 85 Son. Solicitor for the executor : Mr. A. Robinson. SAVAGE v. JAMES V. C. Court. Chattels personal subject of suit-Lien for costs of Plaintiff's solicitor. 1875. Chattels personal, which were not under the control of the Court or in the May 6. possession of the Plaintiff's solicitor, held not to be subject to a lien forhis costs incurred in the suit by means of which they were recovered. SUIT by a married woman, by her next friend, against her husÂÂband and his assignees in bankruptcy, praying that the assignees might be declared trustees for her of certain personal chattels, inÂÂcluding plate, which she alleged was her separate estate. The Plaintiff had retained Mr. Gardner as her solicitor to conÂÂduct the suit, and he had acted for her until the 8th of June, 1874, when she changed him, and appointed Mr. Merrick solicitor in his stead. His costs for his services amounted to £98. The suit (1) 3 Sw. & Tr. 62. • VOL. IX. 2 C 35$ THE IRISH REFORM V. C. Court. never came to a hearing, but a consent was entered into, one of 1875. the terms of which was that...