OlorttpU Ham ^rl|nol Htlirarg 
 
 iiar0tiall €qutty QlnHcrtton 
 
 (gift of 
 
 E. 3(. iiaraljall. Cffi. 1. 1B94 
 
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 924 084 264 286 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924084264286 
 
A TREATISE 
 
 ON 
 
 COSTS IN CHANCEEY. 
 
 GE0B6E OSBOEKE MOKGAN, M.A. 
 
 BARRISTER- AT- law: 
 LATE STOWELL FELLOW OF USIVERSITT COLLEGE, OXFORD ; AND ELDON SCHOLAR : 
 
 HOEACE DAVEY, M.A. 
 
 BAEEISTEE-AT-LAW; 
 LATE FELLOTV OF UKIVEBSITr COU^GE, OXTOED ; AUD ELDON SCHOLAB. 
 
 WBitf) an appenitp 
 
 CONTAINrXG 
 
 FORMS AND PRECEDENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 STEVENS, SONS, AND HAYNES, 
 
 'griis fookstlUrs nnls ^uWis^jrs, 
 
 26 BELL YARD, LINCOLN'S INN. 
 
 MDCCCLXV. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The object of this volume is to digest and review the 
 reported decisions on the subject of Costs in the Court of 
 Chancery. Since the year 1840, when the last edition of 
 Mr. Beames' work on Costs was pubhshed, there has been 
 no regular treatise on this subject. The large number of 
 cases which have been reported since that time, and the 
 extensive additions to the Statutory Jurisdiction of the 
 Court in recent years, render Mr. Beames' work of little 
 use to the practitioner in the present day. The field, 
 therefore, may be considered practically a new one. 
 
 The necessity for a treatise hke the present is illus- 
 trated, and, it may be added, the difficulty of preparing 
 the present work has been increased, by the conflicting 
 character of many of the reported decisions. The ques- 
 tion of Costs is in most cases left tiU the principal points 
 in the case are decided, and is then disposed of, — often 
 without argument, and sometimes without reference to 
 any general principles. 
 
 An Appendix, containing numerous precedents of Bills 
 of Costs, adapted from the second edition of ' Coleman's 
 Chancery Costs,' and illustrated by notes referring to the 
 
Yl PREFACE. 
 
 material portions of the treatise, has been added to the 
 body of the work. The Authors desire to express their 
 obligations to Mr. J. A. Stokes for his assistance in pre- 
 paring it. 
 
 The whole volume is offered to the Profession in the 
 hope that it may prove a useful supplement to the larger 
 treatises on Chancery practice, which, dealing with a 
 wider range of questions, necessarily treat the subject of 
 this work in a more cursory way. 
 
 Lincoln's Inn: 
 February, 1865. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 The Vakious Kinds of Costs ... 1 
 
 CHAPTER n. 
 
 Security for Costs 3 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Costs of a Suit genekallt 
 
 SECT. 
 
 I. Costs of Pleas and Demurrers 18 
 
 II. Costs of A-mendment of Bill 24 
 
 III. Costs of Exceptions for Insufficiency and Scandal .... 27 
 
 IV. Costs and Expenses of Witnesses 29 
 
 V. Costs of Interlocutory Applications, and Petitions generally . . 31 
 
 YI. Where the Costs of the Suit are disposed of on Interlocutory 
 
 Application ........... 47 
 
 VII. Costs of the i)ay 63 
 
 VIII. Costs of the Suit 65 
 
 IX. Costs of Proceedings in Chambers . . . . . . .95 
 
 X. Costs of Rehearings and Appeals .... . . 96 
 
 XI. Appeals for Costs 105 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Costs in Paeticitlaii Suits 
 
 I. Suits for an Acconnt 107 
 
 II. Suits for Administration of Assets 109 
 
 III. Suits relating to Charities 138 
 
 IV. Cross Suits 146 
 
 V. Suits for Discovery or Perpetuation of Testimony . . . .147 
 
 VI. Suits for Dower 151 
 
 Vir. Interpleader Suits 1.^2 
 
 VIII. Suits relating to Mortgages 105 
 
 IX. Suits for Partition, and to settle Boundaries 172 
 
 X. Suits for Dissolution of Partnership 175 
 
 XI. Suits to set aside Sales, &c. of ReTcrsions Id. 
 
 XII. Suits for Specific Performance 177 
 
YIU TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Costs under Pakticulae Acts of Parliament 
 
 SECT. 
 
 I. Costs under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act ..... 189 
 
 II. Costs under Trustee Relief Act 211 
 
 III. Costs under the Trustee Acts 1850-2 219 
 
 IV. Costs under Special Case Act 222 
 
 V. Costs under Winding-up and Joint-Stock Companies' Act . . 224 
 
 VI. Costs under other Acts 229 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Costs affecting Pakticulab Peksons 
 
 I. Costs of Assignees, Incumbrancers, &c 231 
 
 II. Costs of Attorney-General, Crown, &c 233 
 
 III. Costs of the Bank of England . 237 
 
 IV. Costs of Bankrupts 239 
 
 V. Costs of Guardian ad litem 240 
 
 VI. Costs of Heir-at-Law and Next of Kin ...... 242 
 
 VII. Costs of Infants and their next Friends 248 
 
 VIII. Costs of Married Woman and her next Friend, and as between 
 
 Husband and Wife ......... 256 
 
 IX. Costs of Paupers ... 263 
 
 X. Costs of Purchasers under Decree, and of Opening Biddings . . 270 
 
 XI. Costs of Receivers, &c 275 
 
 XII. Costs of and relating to Solicitors 278 
 
 XIII. Costs of Trustees, Executors, and Administrators .... 288 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 Delivery and Taxation of Bills of Costs 
 
 I. Delivery of Bills of Costs 
 II. Form of Bills of Costs 
 
 III. Taxation under Orders of Course 
 
 IV. Taxation on Special Applications 
 
 (a) Before Payment 
 (i) After Payment 
 V. Taxation by Third Party 
 
 Vt. Proceedings on Taxation generally 
 
 VII. Proceedings on Taxation -with reference to Particular Matters 
 VIII. Costs of Taxation . . . . 
 
 304 
 308 
 310 
 318 
 Id. 
 321 
 331 
 338 
 348 
 358 
 
 II 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Modes of Enforcing the Payment op Costs 
 
 Where Costs are ordered to be paid by One Party to another 
 personally .... 
 
 1. Subpoena, Attachment, and Sequestration 
 
 2. As a Judgment, under 1 & 2 Vict. c. HO, and 3 & 4 Vict c. 82 
 
 of Costs ° ^ "°"' '° '^^^^"^^ ^""^ Non-Payment 
 
 4. No Revivor for Costs . . * 
 
 Where Costs are payable out of a Fund or Estate '.'.'' 
 
 III. Recovery of Costs in the House of Lords . 
 
 362 
 363 
 377 
 
 382 
 384 
 385 
 386 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. IX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 IV. Eecovery of Costs by Solicitor from his Client .... 388 
 
 1 . By Action at Law or Suit in Equity ... . Id. 
 
 2. By Process of the Court . ; Id. 
 
 3. Solicitors' Lien and Charge under 23 and 24 Vict. 0.127 . . 390 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 Generai. Ordeks and Regulations relating to Costs in ! 
 Chancery 
 
 Eegulations as to Special Examiners' Fees and Charges, Solicitors' Fees and 
 Charges, Court Fees, and Charges for Copies 
 I. Regulation as to Special Examiners' Fees and Charges . . .401 
 II. Regulations as to Solicitors' Fees and Charges . . . .Id. 
 
 III. Regnlations as to Court Fees 402 
 
 IV. Regulations as to Charges for Copies delivered by Parties and 
 
 Solicitors 403 
 
 The First Schedule: — 
 
 Special Examiners' Fees and Charges 404 
 
 The Second Schedule : — 
 
 Fees and Charges to be allowed to Solicitors Id. 
 
 Instructions Id. 
 
 The Preparation of Pleadings and other Documents . . . 405 
 
 Perusals ........... 406 
 
 Copies r ....... . . . Id. 
 
 xVttendances Id. 
 
 Writs 409 
 
 Notices and Services 410 
 
 Oaths and Exhibits Id. 
 
 Term Fee . . . . * Id. 
 
 The Third Schedule: — 
 
 Other Fees to be allowed to Solicitors ,411 
 
 The Fourth Scheduler- 
 Fees to be collected by means of Stamps Id. 
 
 In the Judges' Chambers Id. 
 
 In the Masters' Offices Id. 
 
 In the Registrar's Office 412 
 
 In the Examiner's Office ........ Id. 
 
 In the Record and Writ Clerk's Office, and Report Office . . Id. 
 
 In the Taxing Master's Office 413 
 
 In the Lord Chancellor's Principal Secretary's Office . . .414 
 
 In the Office of the Secretary at the Rolls Id. 
 
 In the Office of the Accountant-General Id. 
 
 The Fifth Schedule: — 
 
 Amount of Stamps for Collecting Fees Id. 
 
 Rules (relating to Costs) of General Order of March 6, 1860, as to Printing 
 
 of Answers . . . . ■ • • > • • .415 
 
 Schedule (relating to Fees) to General Order of March 6, 1860 . . . Id. 
 
 Schedule referred to in the 1 3th Rule of the General Order of February 5,1861 416 
 Rules (relating to Costs) of General Order of May 16, 1862, as to Printing 
 
 of Affidavits Id- 
 
 First and Second Schedules (relating to Fees, &c.) to General Order of 
 November 11th, 1862, regulating the Mode of Proceeding under the 
 
 Companies' Act, 1862 417 
 
 Fees to be collected by means of Stamps id. 
 
 In the Judges' Chambers — In the Registrar's Office — In the Exa- 
 miner's Office — In the Record and Writ Clerk's Office and 
 Report Office — In the Taxing Master's Office — In the Office 
 of the Lord Chancellor's Principal Secretary— In the Office 
 of the Secretary at the Rolls 417-418 
 
X TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 Forms of Subpoena and Writs for Costs . 
 
 PAGB 
 
 419 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 Forms and Precedents of Bills of Costs 
 
 Geueral Practical Directions— Instructions for Bills, Answers, i!.xa- 
 
 mination, Affidavits, and Petition • '*^° 
 
 Drawing— Perusals— Counsel— Accountant-General— Answer or Exa- 
 mination — Summons— Minutes — Notices and Serv-ices — Close 
 Copies— Observations— Term Fee— Agency Correspondence 426-428 
 Printed Answers from the 15th April, 1860 . . ... 428 
 
 Affidavits and Depositions ■"'• 
 
 Bill of Costs in Chancery : — 
 
 Of Filing Bill and Amendment of same— Advice on Evidence— Sum- 
 mons for Production of Documents — Evidence by Affidavits — 
 With Cross-examination hy Special Examiner— Enlarging of Time 
 for taking Evidence — Setting down Cause — Subpoena to hear 
 Judgment, and Hearing of Cause— Certificate — Further Conside- 
 ration and Taxation of Costs . ..... 429 
 
 Evidence "... 432 
 
 Forms of Bells of Costs : — 
 
 Of Filing Bill — On Application for Special Injunction, &c.— On Ap- 
 plication to dissolve Special Injunction, and of Motion submitting 
 to Decree after Answers filed 4.36 
 
 Motion to dissolve 438 
 
 On Motion submitting to Decree ....... 440 
 
 Plaintiff's Costs of Filing Bill — Paying Money into Court under Sum- 
 mons at Chambers — Amendment of Bill — Inspection of Documents 
 in Plaintiff's possession by Defendant, and Petition on Compro- 
 mise of Suit 441 
 
 Amendment of Bill 442 
 
 Costs of Inquiries directed by Decree — Preliminary as to Next of 
 Kin — Advertisement for Creditors, &o. — Certificate — Further 
 Directions, and Taxation of Costs 444 
 
 Costs of Service of Bill upon Defendants who are not required to 
 appear or answer, and of Motion to enter Memorandum of such 
 Service 447 
 
 Exceptions to Answers 448 
 
 Costs of Overruling Plea or Demurrer Id. 
 
 Costs of Plaintiffs or Respondents on Petition of Appeal against Decree dis- 
 missed with Costs 449 
 
 On an Appeal Motion to dissolve an Injunction dismissed with 
 
 Costs ... ........ 450 
 
 Defendant's Costs : — 
 
 Of Appearance— Filing Answer— Appearance on Motion for Injunction, 
 with Adjournment and further Affidavits— Advice on Evidence- 
 Examination of Witnesses— Publication enlarged— Admission of 
 Documentary Evidence— Summons to inspect Documents, and 
 Hearing of Cause, with Refreshers to Counsel 451 
 
 Defendant's Costs of Appearance— Filing Answer— Ditto to Amended 
 Bill— Advice on Evidence— Summons for Production of Documents 
 —Evidence by Affidavits, with Cross-examination by Special Ex- 
 aminer-Enlarging of Time for taking Evidence and Hearing of 
 
 r.^t^r^ 7 rT"f ""'^"' J^'^^e'^-Certificate andfurther Directkms 456 
 
 ''"^fom^el^it^"'"/" ^:"' ^°' ^PP^^""^ ™ P^'"-*° Com- 
 
 (Solicitor and Client) ■■..''' '^tj 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XI 
 
 Costs of Plea or Demurrer: — 
 
 Pet'endant . 4g3 
 
 Costs of Motion to Dismiss 463 
 
 On Exceptions to Answer — Defendant ...... 464 
 
 Defendant's Costs of Motion to stay Proceedings at Law dismissed witli 
 
 Costs /(/_ 
 
 Plaintiff's Costs •...".!. 465 
 
 Under Administration Suit commenced by Summons ". . . . Id. 
 
 Plaintiff's Costs under Administration Suit, commenced at Chambers 
 by a Creditor, for the Administration of his Debtor's Estate — 
 Inquiries taken — Certificate and Balance of Estate apportioned 
 and paid out to Creditors . . . . , . , .469 
 
 Defendant's Costs — Summons at Chambers ...... 472 
 
 Applicant's Costs of Summons ......... 475 
 
 Originating at Chambers for Appointment of Guardian and Maintenance 
 
 for Infants ......... . M. 
 
 Cost of Party appearing on Summons for Appointment of Guardian, 
 
 and Allowance for Maintenance of Infant ..... 477 
 
 Costs of Trustees where Guardians appointed by Will, without Power 
 
 of Maintenance, under Order made at Chambers . . . 479 
 
 Plaintiff's Costs on Special Case . . 480 
 
 Costs of Appointment of Special Guardian, the Plaintiffs being Infants Id. 
 Attendances on AJteration of Special Case, if any . . . .Id. 
 
 Costs of Defendants on Special Case 482 
 
 (As between Solicitor and Client generally) Id. 
 
 Petitioner's Costs of Petition : — 
 
 Costs of Trustees under Will, being Vendors upon a Purchase made 
 under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, where Money paid into 
 Court thereunder ; and on Petition to get same out of Court . 484 
 
 Vendor's Costs of Petition under Purchase made pursuant to Lands 
 Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 — Petition for Payment of Part of 
 Purchase Money to Petitioner — Power of Attorney to receive 
 same, and Investment of Balance . . . . . .487 
 
 Petitioner's Cost of Petition for Liberty to receive Bond Debt, and 
 
 Investment of same in Suit . 489 
 
 Costs of Petition on Plaintiff attaining Twenty-one, and for Discharge of 
 
 Receiver ........... 490 
 
 Petitioner'.s Costs as between Solicitor and Client — Petition 
 
 amended 491 
 
 Respondent's Costs on Petition of Plaintiff on Payment of Bond Debt, 
 
 and for Investment of same Id. 
 
 Respondent's Costs — Petition amended ...... 4'j2 
 
 Costs of Applicant : — 
 
 OnSummonsat Chambers for Appointment of New Trustees (originating 
 
 Proceedings). ...... . . . Id. 
 
 Costs of Party served upon Summons at Chambers h93 
 
 Costs of Application : — 
 
 On Summons for the Appointment of Guardians to an Infant, and for 
 
 Maintenance (not originating Proceedings) .... 494 
 
 Costs of Defendant 
 
 (Or other Party served) on Summons for Appointment of Guardians 
 
 (not originating Proceedings) . . . . . . .496 
 
 On Original Summons at Chambers dismissed with Costs . . .496 
 Costs of Incumbrancer:— 
 
 On a Fund in Court, appearing on Petition for Payment of the several 
 
 Incumbrancers on the Fund .... . . 497 
 
 Receiver's Costs of Appointment and Passing his Account . . Id. 
 
 Plaintiff's or Defendant's Costs on Passing Receiver's Account . 499 
 
 On Passing his Final Account . . 500 
 
XU TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ordinary Conveyancing Charges in Common Cases . . . . ■ 500 
 
 Ordinary Vendor's Solicitor's Charges on Agreement and Conveyance Id, 
 Ordinary Vendor's Solicitor's Charges — Sales by Auction . . .501 
 
 Ordinary Purchaser's Costs, on Agreement to purchase and convey . 502 
 
 If settled by Counsel Id. 
 
 Ordinary Mortgagor's Solicitor's Charges 503 
 
 Ordinary Mortgagee's Solicitor's Charges 504 
 
 Lease and Counterpart Id. 
 
 Of Memorial of Deed registered 505 
 
 General Charges Id. 
 
 Drawing 506 
 
 Appearance or Defence Id. 
 
 Perusing ............ Id. 
 
 Attendances Id. 
 
 At Chambers 507 
 
 Examination of Witnesses Id. 
 
 Hearing of Cause Id. 
 
 Notices 508 
 
 Copies and Services Id, 
 
 Accountaut-General Jd. 
 
 ■Writs ii_ 
 
 Costs Id, 
 
 Conveyancing , Id. 
 
 Petitioners' or Applicants' Costs of Taxing Solicitor's Bill .... 509 
 
INDEX TO THE APPENDICES. 
 
 ABATEMENT OF SUIT, 406, 506. 
 
 ABSTRACT OF TITLE, 426, 484, 501. 
 
 ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL: 
 request to inrest cash, 427. 
 „ to carry over, 427. 
 mvestment, 427. 
 to sell or transfer stock, 427. 
 payment in of cash, 427. 
 certificate of fund in Court, 486. 
 general charges, 427. 
 
 ACCOUNTS: 
 
 affidavit as to, 445, 460, 
 
 perusal of, 426, 445. 
 
 costs of passing receiver's accounts, 499, 500. 
 
 ADDING PARTIES, 406, 506. 
 
 ADMISSIONS, 454, 455. 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT, 445. 
 
 ADVICE ON EVIDENCE, 453. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT : 
 
 instructions for, 426. 
 
 of service, 434. 
 
 as to documents, 431, 443. 
 
 as to identity of parties, 445, 467. 
 
 of residue, 475. 
 
 evidence taken by, 432. 
 
 on special case, 481. 
 
 settled by counsel, 355. 
 
 rules relating to printing, 416. 
 
 perusal and close copy, 416. 
 
 briefing printed affidavits and depositions, 416. 
 
 AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE, 410. 
 
 AMENDED BILL, 430. 
 
XIV INDEX TO BILLS OF COSTS, 
 
 ANSWEB : 
 
 to original bill, 451. 
 special fee, 404. 
 to amended bill, 457. 
 printed, 428. 
 
 consent to take same without oath, 441. 
 exceptions to, 448, 464. 
 insufficiency of, 430. 
 [No brief of when printed.] 
 
 APPEAL, plaintiff's or respondent's costs, 449. 
 
 APPEARANCE : 
 on bill, 451. 
 on special case, 483. 
 to original summons, 472. 
 
 APPLICANT'S COSTS : 
 
 on summons originating in chambers, 475. 
 
 on other summons, 492. 
 
 of appointment of guardians, 475. 
 
 not originating in chambers, 494. 
 
 ATTENDANCES, general, 406, 506. 
 
 BILL: 
 
 original, 429. 
 amended, 430. 
 supplemental, 505. 
 . amending print of, 434. 
 
 service upon parties not required to appear, 447. 
 motion to dismiss, 463. 
 special fee (as instructions) for, 404. 
 
 BRIEF : 
 
 instructions for, on motion for injunction, 43?. 
 
 in a cause, 434, 452. 
 
 on further consideration, 435, 460. 
 
 CAUSE : 
 
 short, 506. 
 
 setting down, 434. 
 
 the like further consideration, 435. 
 
 hearing, 434. 
 
 special fees on the hearing, 507. 
 
 CERTIFICATE : 
 of pleadings, 433. 
 of fund in Court, 486. 
 of counsel to hear short cause, 506. 
 of chief clerk, 435. 
 to proceed under lower scale, 403. 
 of general attendances before chief clerk, 435. 
 
 CLOSE COPIES, 427. 
 
 COMMISSIONER to cross-examine, 432. 
 
 CONFERENCE, 430. 
 
 CONSULTATION, 434. 
 
 CONVEYANCE, 485, 486. 
 
 CONVEYANCING— general charges, 500, 501, 502, 509. 
 
 COPIES, regulations as to charges, 403, 406. 
 
AVEITS, AND GENERAL CHARGES. XV 
 
 COSTS: 
 
 computation of folios, 426. 
 
 reference to taxing master, 436. 
 
 drawing, 436. 
 
 taxation, 436. 
 
 out of fund in Court, no fees by stamps in respect of taxation. 
 
 copies and services, 508. 
 
 COSTS, Plaintiff's : 
 of the suit, 429. 
 of subsequent costs, 429. 
 of special injunction, 436. 
 of motion to dissolve injunction, 438. 
 of motion submitting to decree, 440. 
 
 of suit including amendment of bill, and of petition to compromise suit, 441. 
 of enquiries directed by decree and cgsts under order on further considera- 
 tion, 444. 
 of service of bill, 447. 
 of petition of appeal against decree, 449. 
 on appeal motion to dissolve injunction, 450. 
 of administration suit commenced by summons, 465. 
 the'like commenced by a creditor, 469. 
 of special case, 480. 
 of passing receiver's account, 499. 
 
 COSTS, Defendant's : 
 of snit, 431. 
 of snit and of amended bill, and of enquiries under decree and under order 
 
 for further consideration, 456. 
 of answer and of petition to compromise suit, 461. 
 of motion to dismiss, 463. 
 of exceptions to answer, 464. 
 of motion to stay proceedings at law, 464. 
 of administration suit commenced by summons, 472. 
 of special case, 482. 
 
 on summons for appointment of guardians (not originating proceedings), 496. 
 of original summons dismissed with costs, 496. 
 of passing receiver's account, 499. 
 
 COSTS, Petitioner's: 
 
 of petition under Lands Clauses Act, 484. 
 ' to obtain money out of Court, 487. 
 
 of petition to receive bond debt, and of investment, 489. 
 
 of petition on attaining 21, and for discharge of receiver, 490. 
 
 of amended petition, 491. 
 
 of taxing solicitor's bill under statute, 509. 
 COSTS, Respondent's : 
 
 of appeal motion to dissolve injunction, 450. 
 
 of petition of appeal against decree, 449. 
 
 of petition for payment of bond debt and for investment, 491. 
 
 of petition amended, 492. 
 COSTS, Vendor's: 
 
 of petition under Lands Clauses Act, 487. 
 
 COSTS, Applicant's: . . , , „ ,. , . ^ 
 
 of summons originatmg in chambers for guardian and maintenance, 475. 
 of party appearing on such summons, 477. 
 of appointment of new trustees, 492. 
 of party appearing on summons, 493. 
 
 of appointment of guardians to an infant, and for maintenance (not origi- 
 nating proceedings), 494. 
 
XVI INDEX TO BILLS OP COSTS, 
 
 COSTS, Trustees': 
 
 of summons at chambers for maintenance, 479. 
 
 COSTS, Receiver's : 
 
 of appointment, 497. 
 
 of passing his account, 497. 
 
 of passing final account and vacating recognizance, 500, 
 
 COSTS, Incumbrancer's: 
 
 of appearing on petition for payment of incumbrances, 497. 
 
 COSTS of lease and counterpart, 504. 
 
 COSTS of memorial, 505. 
 
 COUNSEL: 
 
 fees for attending, 426. 
 affidavits settled by, 355. 
 
 DECREE, motion for, 436. 
 
 DEFENDANT'S COSTS: 
 
 summons for time to answer, 451. 
 passing receiver's account, 499. 
 of appearance, 451. 
 of demurrer, 463. 
 on motion for injunction, 436. 
 examination of witnesses, 454. 
 on petition to compromise suit, 462. 
 of suit, 451. 
 
 on motion to stay proceedings at law, 464. 
 on special case, 482. 
 of assigning guardian, 478, 496. 
 of original summons dismissed with costs, 496. 
 See also Costs of Defendants. 
 
 DEMURRER, costs of, 448, 463. 
 
 DEPOSITIONS: 
 
 printed, 428, 434, 455. 
 
 no perusal or close copy, 434. 
 
 DOCUMENTS: 
 
 summons for production of, 431. 
 inspection, 443, 454. 
 affidavit as to, 431, 443. 
 
 DRAWING— general charges, 426. 
 
 ENQUIRIES: 
 
 preliminary, 444. 
 general, 446. 
 
 EVIDENCE: 
 
 documentary, admission of, 454. 
 preparing list of, for registrar, 486. 
 taken by affidavits, 432. 
 enlargement of time, 432. 
 printed, 416, 428. 
 to advise on, 432, 458. 
 
 EXAMINER, Special : 
 
 appointment of, 433, 459. 
 expenses allowed to, 416. 
 regulation as to fees and charges, 401. 
 
WRITS, AND GENERAL CHARGES. XVU 
 
 EXAMINATION: 
 
 of witnesses in chief, 454. 
 cross-examination, 432. 
 general directions, 404. 
 
 EXCEPTIONS TO ANS^yER, 44S, 464. 
 
 EXECUTOR, affidavit of receipts and payments, 445, 460. 
 
 FEES : 
 
 Conrt fees, regulations as to, 402. 
 
 for copies delivered by parties or solicitors, 403. 
 
 of special examination, 404. 
 
 general, allowed to solicitors, 404, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411. 
 
 other fees allowed to solicitors, 411, 415. 
 
 fees under lower scale, 401. 
 
 collected hy stamps, 411,414,417, 418. 
 
 payable in Judges' Chambers, 411, 417. 
 
 Registrar's office, 412, 417. 
 
 Examiner's office, 412, 417. 
 
 Record and Writ Clerk's office, 412, 417. 
 
 in the Taxing Master's office, 413, 418. 
 
 Lord Chancellor's Secretary's office, 414, 418. 
 
 Secretary at the RoUs, 414, 418. 
 
 Accountant-General, 414. 
 
 FOLIOS, computations of, 405. 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION : 
 
 brief, 435, 460. 
 
 setting down cause, 435. 
 
 hearing, 460. 
 
 special fee, 507. 
 GENERAL CHARGES, 505-9. 
 
 GUARDIANS: 
 
 appointment of and maintenance, 475, 494. 
 
 on special case, 431. 
 
 defendant's or other parties' costs on, 477, 496. 
 
 HEARING CAUSE : 
 
 brief on, 434, 452. 
 
 attending Court, 507. 
 
 special fee, 507. 
 INCUMBRANCER, appearing on petition, costs of, 497. 
 
 INFANT: 
 
 guardian and maintenance, 475, 494. 
 petitioner's costs on attaining 21, 490. 
 
 INJUNCTION: 
 
 special, 436. 
 
 to dissolve, 438, 450. 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS: 
 
 for original bill, 429. 
 
 to amended bill, 430, 
 
 to defend, 451, 472. 
 
 to appear, 451, 472. . . 
 
 for summons originatmg m chambers, 4bS. 
 
 for answer, 505. 
 
 for petitions, 505. 
 
 general charges, 404, 505. 
 
XYIU INDEX TO BILLS OF COSTS, 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR BILL : 
 answer, "1 
 
 petition, J 
 
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR BRIEFS: 
 on motion for injunction, 427. 
 on hearing of cause, 434, 452. 
 
 INSUFFICIENCY OF ANSWER, 431. 
 
 INTERROGATORIES : 
 to original bill, 429, 451, 
 to amended bill, 430. 
 
 INVESTMENT, 427. 
 
 LAND'S CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, petition under, 484 
 
 LEASE, 504. 
 
 LOWER SCALE: 
 
 form of certificate, 403. 
 fees, 11,401,404-411. 
 
 MAINTENANCE, summons for, 479. 
 
 MEMORIAL, 505. 
 
 MINUTES OF DECREE OR ORDER : 
 bespeaking, 434. 
 drawing, 468. 
 settling, 468. 
 
 prepared by registrar, 434. 
 settling, 435. 
 special fee, 427. 
 
 MORTGAGEE'S COSTS, 504. 
 
 MORTGAGOR'S COSTS, 503. 
 
 MOTION FOR INJUNCTION, 451. 
 
 on appeal to dissolve injunction, 438, 450. 
 
 to dismiss bill, 463. 
 
 to stay proceedings at law, 464. 
 
 hearing of, 453. 
 
 to enter memorandum of service of bill, 447. 
 
 for decree, 440. 
 
 to set down special case, 481. 
 
 NEXT FRIEND, 465. 
 
 NOTICES, 410, 427. 
 
 OATHS AND EXHIBITS, 410. 
 
 OBSERVATIONS, 427, 435, 452, 4 60. 
 
 ORDER:' 
 
 minutes, 434. 
 
 special allowance for settling, 435. 
 
 passing, 435. 
 
 PARTIES, additional, 406, 506. 
 
 PARTY, costs of summons served upon, 493. 
 
 PAYMENT INTO COURT, 508. 
 
 PERUSALS, general charges, 426. 
 
WRITS, AND GENERAL CHARGES. 
 
 PERUSAL OF BILL, 406. 
 answer, 406. 
 amended bill, 406. 
 affidavits, 426. 
 creditors' claims, 408. 
 conveyance, 485. 
 order to revive, 406. 
 special ease, 483. 
 
 PETITION: 
 
 instructions for, 426. 
 
 for compromise of suit, 443. 
 
 of appeal, 449. 
 
 to amend bill, 430. 
 
 to revive, 406. 
 
 PETITIONER'S COSTS, 443. 
 
 as trustees under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 484. 
 
 to obtain payment out of Court, 487. 
 
 of investment of residue and payment of dividends to petitioner, 487. 
 
 of petition to compromise suit, 443. 
 
 „ to receive bond debt, and investment of same, 489. 
 
 „ on infant plaintiff attaining 21, 490. 
 
 „ amended, 491. 
 
 PLAINTIFFS COSTS: 
 of filing Bill, 429. 
 of amending same, 429. 
 of special case, 480. 
 on application for injunction, 436. 
 
 submitting to decree, 440. 
 on application to dissolve injunction, 438. 
 on an appeal motion to dissolve injunction, 450. 
 on appeal against decree or order, 449. 
 of appointment of receiver, 497. 
 on passing receiver's accounts, 499 
 of administration suit at chambers, 465. 
 See also Costs of Plaintiffs. 
 
 PLEA OR DEMURRER, costs of, 448, 463. 
 
 PLEADINGS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS, preparation of, 405. 
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY, 486, 488, 497. 
 
 PRINTED EVIDENCE, affidavits and depositions, 428, 429. 
 
 PRINTING BILLS, 441. (19th Consolidated Orders, Rule 40.) 
 
 answers, order as to, 415. 
 
 affidavits, as to, 416. 
 
 depositions, as to, 416. 
 PROBATE DUTY AFFIDAVIT, for return of, 474. 
 PUBLICATION, enlargement of, 432, 453. 
 PURCHASERS' COSTS, agreement for conveyance, 502. 
 
 RECEIVER: 
 
 appointment of, 497. 
 
 plaintiff's and defendant's costs on passing account, 499. 
 
 on passing final account, 500. 
 
 recognizance, vacating same, 500. 
 
 REFERENCE TO TAXING MASTER, 436. 
 
 REFRESHERS, 455. 
 
 a 2 
 
XX INDEX TO BILLS OF COSTS, 
 
 REPLICATION, 431. 
 
 REQUEST : 
 
 to inTest, 427. 
 
 to carry over, 427. 
 
 to set down cause for hearing, 434. 
 
 „ for further consideration, 435. 
 
 REQUISITIONS ON TITLE, 501. 
 
 RESPONDENT'S COSTS: 
 on appeal, 449. 
 
 on appeal, motion to dissolve injunction, 450. 
 on petition, 491. 
 on petition amended, 492. 
 
 RETAINER, 441, 453. 
 
 REVIVOR, 406. 
 
 SERVICE, memorandum of, 447. 
 
 SERVICES, 410. 
 
 SHORT CAUSE, 506. 
 
 SOLICITOR'S BILL. Taxed under statute, 509. 
 
 SOLICITORS, fees allowed to, under general order of 11th NoTemher, 1862, 
 
 417. 
 SPECIAL CASE. Plaintiff's costs, 480. 
 Defendant's costs, 482. 
 
 STAMPS FOR COLLECTING FEES, 414. 
 
 STATEMENT: 
 
 to move for order to revive, 406. 
 perusing, 406. 
 
 STATEMENTS FOR CHIEF CLERK. Drawing same and copy, 446, 460. 
 SUBPCENA: 
 
 duces tecum, 409. 
 
 ad test., 454. 
 
 to hear judgment, 434. 
 
 for costs, 419. 
 
 SUIT: 
 
 plaintiff's costs of, 429. 
 defendant's costs of, 451. 
 
 SUMMONS: 
 
 to consider decree or order, 435, 466. 
 
 to enlarge time for examination of witnesses, 432. 
 
 to produce documents, 431, 454. 
 
 to inspect same, 454. 
 
 to pay money into court, 442. 
 
 to amend bill, 442. 
 
 for time to answer, 451. 
 
 for Special Examiner to cross-examine witnesses, 433, 459. 
 
 for administration of estate, 465, 469. 
 
 costs of party served with, 493, 
 
 dismissed with costs, 496. 
 
 services of, 427. 
 
 memorandum of service, 447. 
 
 personal service of, 438. 
 
 affidavit of service of, 447. 
 
 for guardians and maintenance, 477, 479, 494. 
 
WEITSj AND GENERAL CilAllGES. XXI 
 
 TAXATION, costs of, 413, 436. 
 TERM FEES, 410, 428, 430, 451. 
 TIME TO ANSWER, 451. 
 
 TITLE : 
 
 abstract of, 501. 
 requisi'dons on, 501. 
 
 TRUSTEES : 
 
 costs of application for guardian and maintenance, 477. 
 appointment of, 492. 
 
 VENDORS : 
 
 costs of, under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 487 
 of agreement and conveyance, 500, 501, 
 charges of, under sale by auction, 501. 
 
 WITNESSES: 
 
 drawing proofs, 454. 
 subpoena for examination of, 454. 
 serrice on, 454. 
 examination of, 434. 
 
 WRITS : 
 
 forms of, 419 to 425. 
 general charges, 409. 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 A. 
 
 — t'. Andrews, 150 
 
 — V. CoUinge, 180 
 
 — V. Jolland, 285 
 
 — V. Trecothick, 163 
 A V. B, 27 
 Abbott, Re, 306, 325 
 
 — V. Sworder, 182, 183, 184 
 A'Beokett, Ex parte, 226 
 Aberdeen v. Chitty, 156 
 Abergavenny (Lord) v. Powell, 149 
 Ablett r. Edwards, 81 
 
 Abrara „. Ward, 26, 84 
 Ackerley v. Frodsham, 36 
 Ackroyd !'. Smithson, 110 
 Acres v. Little, 253 
 Adair v. Harrington, 37 
 
 — V. Shaw, 135 
 Adams v. Adams, 118 
 
 — V. Clifton, 295 
 
 — V. Sworder, 101 
 A damson, Re, 312 
 
 — V. HaU, 56 
 Adderley v. Smith, 5 
 Addie's Charity, Re, 209 
 
 Advocate (Lord) v. Lord Dunglas, 97, 
 
 105, 234 
 African Steam Ship Co. v. Swanzy, 76 
 Agabeg v. Hartwell, 101, 104, 294 
 Agar V. Fairfax, 172 
 Ainslie v. Sims, 5, 1 6 
 Aislabie v. Bice, 178 
 Albert (Prince) v. Strange, 267 
 Alcock, Re, 324, 329 
 
 — V. Alcock, 9 
 
 Aldborongh(Lord) v. Barton, 4 
 Aldridge v. Westbrook, 88, 133 
 AUibone v. Jones, 269, 369 
 Allan «. Houlden, 18 
 
 Allen V. Bone, 60, 62 
 
 Allen V. Currie, 187 
 
 — V. McPhersou, 263 
 
 — V. Spring, 26 
 
 — V. Williams, 379 
 Allison V. Herring, 388 
 Alsop V. Bell, 115 
 
 — V. Lord Oxford, 347 
 Alston V. Park, 159 
 Altree v. Hordern, 383 
 Amard v. Broadbourne, 2 
 Andenshaw School, Re, 201 
 Anderson, Ex parte, 156 
 
 — V. Boynton, 309 
 
 — V. Guichard, 53 
 
 — V. Yales, 250, 251 
 Andrewes v. Walton, 364, 365, 375 
 Andrews, Ex parte, 328 
 
 — Re, 308, 341 
 ^ V. Cradock, 256 
 
 — V. Lockwood, 384 
 
 — V. Morgan, 52 
 Angel V. Da vies, 105, 106 
 Angell V. Brown, 243 
 
 — V. HaddoD, 128 
 Angier v. Stannard, 300, 302 
 Auglo-Danubian Steam Co. (limited) v. 
 
 Rogerson, 11 
 Annesley v. Simeon, 11 
 Anonymous (5 L. J. Ch. 71), 5 
 
 — (Mos. 175), 5 
 
 — (1 Atk. 570), 7 
 
 — (1 Ves. juu. 409), 8 
 
 — (Mos. 86), 8 
 
 _ (12 Sim. 262), 12 
 
 — (10 Ves. 287)13 
 
 — (7 Jur. 272), 24 
 
 — (15 Ves. 170), 38 
 
 — (1 Vern 116) 48 
 
 — (1 Ves. jun. 140), 50 
 
 — (4 Mad. 461), 53, 253 
 
 — (3 P. W. 90, note), 60 
 
 — (4 Mad. 273), 66, 108 
 
XXIV 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Anonymous (2 Atk. 14), 69, 74 
 
 — (3 Mad. 62), 78 
 
 — (2 S. & S. 424), 130 
 
 — (3 L. J. Ch. 227), 149 
 
 — (8 Ves. 69), 149 
 
 — (Amb 236, 2 Ves. 497), 150 
 
 — (2 Mad. 281), 156 
 
 — (Mos. 45), 170 
 
 — (8 W. R. 333), 230 
 
 — (3 Atk. 726), 261 
 
 — (2 Vern. 197), 261 
 
 — (Mos. 66), 267 
 
 — (2 Ves.jun. 286)274 
 
 - te Ves. 286), 277 
 
 - (6 Mad. 68, note), 383 
 
 — (Mos. 246), 367 
 
 — (2 Dick. 802), 396 
 
 — (2 Ves. 25), 397 
 
 Anspach (Margravine) v. Noel, 183 
 Appleby v. Duke, 83 
 Applin V. Gates, 155 
 Archbold v. Scully, 74 
 Archdeacon v. Bowes, 162 
 Archer v. Gardner, 262 
 
 — V. Roleston, 85 
 Aria v. Emanuel, 140 
 
 Armltage v. Askham, 186, 187, 192 
 Armston's Trusts, Re, 219 
 Armstrong v. Blake, 74 
 
 — V. Storer, 93, 132, 399 
 
 Arundel (Corporation of) v. Holmes, 
 
 147 
 Ashburnham v. Thompson, 120, 121 
 Ashe V. Berry, 67 
 Ashley v. W'augh, 179 
 Askham and Uppingham Grammar 
 
 Schools (.GoTernors of), Ex parte, 207 
 Aston's Case, 227 
 
 Athenseum Insurance Co. v. Bartlett, 37 
 Atkins V. Cook, 12, 14, 15 
 Atkinson, Re, 312, 318 
 
 — V. Abbot, 62 
 Attwood V. Small, 151 
 
 Attorney General v. Arrowsmith, 304 
 
 — V. Ashburnham, 138, 235 
 
 — V. Atherstone School, 144 
 
 — V. Berry, 77, 139 
 
 — V. Bolton, 139 
 
 — V. Brewers' Co., 298 
 
 — V. Brown, 23 
 
 — V. Burch, 151 
 
 — V. Butcher, 106 
 
 — V. Caius College, 1 43 
 
 — V. Carrington, Lord, 38, 92, 347, 350, 
 351 
 
 — V. Carte, 140 
 
 — V. Cashel, Corporation of, 141 
 
 — V. Chester, 87, 138 
 
 — V. Chesterfield, Lord, 138, 235 
 
 Attorney-General w.Christ'sHospital,297 
 
 — V. Cooper, 11, 37 
 
 — V. Cox, 100 
 
 — V Craven, Earl, 144 
 
 — V. CuUum, 139 
 
 — V. Cumming, 291 
 
 — V. Daugars, 142, 303 
 
 — V. Dove, 138 
 
 — V. Drapers' Co., 138, 296, 353 
 
 — V. Drummond, 140, 142 
 
 — V. Eastlake, 74 
 
 — V. East Retford, 143 
 
 — V. Etheridge, 76 
 
 — V. Fishmongers' Co., 140 
 
 — V. Foster, 249 
 
 — V. Gibbs, 108 
 
 — V. Gleg, 138 
 
 — V. Grainger, 144, 291 
 
 — V. Greenhill, 1 45 
 
 — V. Haberdabhers' Co., 125, 143, 247 
 
 — V. Hanmer, 235 
 
 — V. Harper, 146 
 
 — V. Hartley, 139 
 
 — (). Hill, 63 
 
 — u. Holland, 77, 139 
 
 — V. Hotham, Lord, 145 
 
 — V. Hurst, 110 
 
 — V. Ironmongers' Co.,' 141 
 
 — V. Kerr, 140, 141, 143, 145, 247 
 
 — V. Knight, 10 
 
 — V. La-wes, 112, 113 
 
 — V. Leicester, Corporation of, 143 
 
 — V. Lewis, 139 
 
 — V. London, City of, 258 
 
 — V. London, Corporation of, 235 
 - V. Mansfield,' Earl of, 141 
 
 — V. Mercers' Co., 143 
 
 — V. Middleton, 139 
 
 — V. Munro, 352 
 
 — V. Murdoch, 298 
 
 — V. Nethercote, 381 
 
 — V. Newark, Corporation of, 273 
 
 — V. Newark- upon -Trent, Mayor of, 
 145 
 
 — V. Newbury, Corporation of, 143 
 • — V. Mayor of Norwich, 4], 290 
 
 — V. Oglender, 139 
 
 — V. Owen, 145 
 
 — ». Poole, Corporation of, 21 
 
 — V. Rochester, Mayor of, 10 
 
 — V. Smart, 138 
 
 — u. Skinners' Co., 10,62, 140, 142 
 145, 287 
 
 — V Thetford, Corporation of, 381 
 
 — V. Tyler, 140, 141 
 
 — V. Vigor, 141 
 
 — V. Vivian, 139 
 
 — V. "Ward , 144 
 
 — V. Winchelsea, Lord, 1 10 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXV 
 
 Attorney-General i'. Corporation of 
 Winchester, 140 
 
 — V. "Windsor, Dean and Canons of, SO, 
 99, 138, 235 
 
 — V. Wyville, 88 
 Aubrey v. Aspinall, 284 
 
 — V. Hoper, 340 
 Audsley v. Horn, 79 
 
 Austin V. Bank of England, 237 
 Australian Steam Co. (limited) v. 
 
 Fleming, 14, 15 
 Averal u. Wade, 384 
 Ayles V. Cox, 222 
 Aylet V. Dodd, 145 
 Aylmeru. Winterbothara, 112, 123 
 Aynsworth v. Bank of England, 237 
 
 B. 
 
 Backhouse v. Middletou, 261 
 Baddeley v. Harding, 4 
 Bagot, Re, 192 
 
 — V. Bagot, 105 
 Bagshawe, Re, 319 
 
 — V. Newton, 111 
 Bailey, Ex parte, 313 
 
 — V. Dennett, 63 
 
 — V. Gould, 120 
 
 — V. Gundry, 6, 14 
 Bainbrigge r. Baddeley, 24 
 
 — V. Blair, 280, 281, 282 
 
 — V. iloss, 22 
 
 — V. Orton, 7 
 Baker, Re, 332, 333 
 
 — V. Carter, 297 
 
 — V. Henderson, 391 
 
 — V. Lee, 98 
 
 — V. Wind, 161 
 Bakewellw. Tagart, 124 
 Baleh v. Symes, 391, 396 
 Baldwin v. Damer, 37 
 Baldwyn v. Johnson, 80 
 
 — V. Malo, 382 
 
 Balguy V. Broadhurst, 8, 207 
 Ball V. Etches, 374 
 
 — V. Harris, 156 
 
 — V. Montgomery, 263, 299 
 Ballard v. Catling, 267 
 Balme v. Paver, 332 
 Bamford v. Bamford, 1 52 
 
 — V. Watts, 43, 44 
 
 Banbury v. , 149 
 
 Bangley's Trusts, Be, 218 
 Banks t). Whittal, 161, 168 
 Bannerman o. Clarke, 187 . 
 Barber, Re, 332 
 
 _'s Trusts, Re, 212 
 
 — r. Barber, 18, 114 
 
 Barber t>. Kavanagh, 37 
 Barclay, Ex parte, 156 
 Bai-ham v. Longman, 150 
 Baring v. Nash, 172 
 
 — V. Prinsep, 148 
 Barker v. Railton, 136 
 
 — V. Wardle. 137 
 Barlee v. Barlee, 257, 259 
 Barlow v. Gains, 162 
 Barnard, Re, 89, 320, 321, 399 
 Barnardiston u. Lingwood, 176 
 Barnes, Ee, 258 
 
 — V. Racster, 157, 158 
 
 — V. Tweddell, 363 
 Barnesley v. Powel, 367, 396 
 Barnewell v. Iremonger, 117, 1 IS 
 Barrett, Re, 359 
 
 — V. Pearson, 185, 187 
 Barron, Re, 329, 332 
 
 — V. Lanoefield, 1 70 
 Barry u. Cane, 262 
 
 — V. Croskey, 22 
 
 — V. Woodham, 262 
 
 — V. Wrey, 167 
 Bartholomew's Will, Re, 217 
 Bartlett v. Harton, 34 
 
 — r. Smith, 265 
 
 — V. Wood, 66. 114, 248 
 Barton, Ex parte, 326, 327, 3:^9 
 
 — V. Barton, 57 
 
 — V. Cooke, 111, 112 
 — ■ V. Downes, 273 
 
 — V. Lautour, 43, 45, 272 
 
 — V. Rock, 53, 150 
 Bartle v. Wilken, 166 
 Bartrum, Re, 315 
 Barwell v. Barwell, 39 
 
 — V. Brooks, 312, 313, 330 
 Basevi v. Serra, 125 
 
 Basingstoke (Mayor of) v. Lord 
 
 Bolton, 20 
 Batchelor v. Middleton, 157 
 Bate V. Hooper, 297 
 Bateman v. Margerison, 86 
 Bates V. Bonner, 275 
 
 — V. Frost, 375 
 
 Bath (Marquis of). Ex parte, 209 
 
 — V. Coney, 387 
 
 Bathe v. Bank of England, 237 
 
 Bathew v. Needham, 49 
 
 Bauer v. Mitford, 35, 363 
 
 Baugh V. Price, 176 
 
 Bawtree v. Watson, 176, 397, 362, 398 
 
 Bayley, Re, 323 
 
 Bayly v. Bayly, 264 
 
 — V. Lambert, 49 
 Bear v. Smith, 131 
 Bearblock v. Tyler, 70 
 Beardsall v. Cheeth iin, 360 
 
XXAT 
 
 TABLE or CASES. 
 
 Eeauehamp v. Marquis of Huntley, 
 
 130, 131 
 Beavan v. Carpenter, 53, 55, 150 
 Becke.Re, 312, 332 
 Bective (Earl of) v. Hodgson, 100 
 Beddoes, Ex parte, 1 94 
 
 — V. Pugh, 81 
 
 Bedford Charity, Re, 141, 145 
 Bedminster Charities, Re, 34S 
 Bedson, Re, 305, 359 
 Beer v. Tapp, 122 
 Bell, Ke, 311 
 
 — V. Bell, 55 
 
 — V. Taylor, 391 
 
 Bellamy v. Brickenderj, 60, 81 
 Bellchamber v. Giaui, 42, 383 
 Bellot, Ek parte, 39 
 Belton, Ex parte, 307 
 Benbow v. Davies 292 
 Bendyshe, Re, 214, 301 
 Bennet v. Going, 121, 298 
 Bennett, Ee, 324 
 
 — V. Atkins, 120 
 
 — V. Baxter, 392 
 
 — V. Biddies, 45 
 
 — V. Chudleigh, 269, 369 
 
 — 0. Fowler, 180, 184 
 
 — V. Hill, 319 
 
 — V. Wade, 278 
 ■ — V. Wood, 124 
 
 Bennett College v. Carey, 66 
 Benson v. Hadfield, 18 
 Bensusan v. Nehemias, 77 
 Bentley v. Bentley, 129 
 Berney v. Eyre, 149. 242, 243 
 Berry, Ex parte, 239 
 
 — V. Hebblethwaite, 134, 160 
 
 — V. Johnson, 273 
 
 Bertie v. Lord Abingdon, 277 
 Betagh v. Conoannon, 385 
 Belts V. Barton, 40, 47 
 
 — V. Clifford, 32, 353 
 Bevan, Re, 315 
 Bewley v. Seymour, 62 
 Biddle, Re, 171, 221 
 Bidulph V. Bidulph, 149 
 Biedermann v. Seymour, 64 
 Bignold, Re, 312, 322, 332 
 Billing V. Coppock, 305 
 
 — V. Webb, 272 
 Binnington v. Harwood, 162 
 Binns v. Hay, 319 
 
 Birch's Trusts, Re, 21 i 
 
 — Will, Re, 43, 44 
 Bird V. Heath, 394 
 
 — V. Hustler, 24 
 
 Birks V. Micklethwayt, 293 
 Biscoe V. Brett, 58 
 
 — V. Wilkes, 76, 178 
 
 Bishop, Ex parte, 86 
 
 — V. Willis, 28 
 Bissett V. Burgess, 136 
 
 Blackburn Railway Amalgamation Act, 
 
 Re, 205 
 Blaekburne v. Jepson, 86 
 Blackmore, Re. 222, 234, 335 
 
 — V. Smith. 54 
 Blagrave v. Routh, 330 
 Blake v. Blake, 36, 40 
 
 — V. Smith, 62 
 
 — V. White, 380 
 Blakeney v. Dufaur, 3, 4, 38 
 Blakesley, Re, 342, 360 
 Blanchet v. Foster, 263 
 Bland v. Lamb, 264 
 Blanshard v. Drew, 50, 54 
 Blenkinsop v. Foster, 127, 135 
 Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp, 87 
 Blest V. Brown, 73 
 
 Blinkhorne v. Feast, 149, 243, 24,5, 
 
 246 
 Blinsten v. Warburton, 223 
 Blome V. Harvey, 65 
 Blosse V. Lord Clanmorris, 273 
 Blount V. Barrow, 293 
 Bloyes' Trusts, Re, 212 
 Bluett V. Jessop, 137 
 Blunden v. Desart, 390, 392 
 Blunfs Trusts, Re, 215 
 
 — V. Heslop, 305 
 Blythe v. Granville, 233 
 Boddington v. Woodesley, 264 
 Boddy V. Kent, 239 
 
 Booth V. Booth, 79, 350 
 
 — V. Creswicke, 168 
 
 — V. Leycester, 48, 147 
 Boothby t). Boothby, 176 
 Bookless V. Crammack, 130 
 Bonsor v. Bradshaw, 249, 400 
 Boreham v. Bignall, 68 
 Borton v. Dunbar, 97 
 
 Boson V. Boson, 243 
 Boston V. Richardson, 131 
 Boswell V. Tucker, 27, 83 
 Bosworthon Mining Co., Re, 225 
 Bothomley v. iSquires, 21 
 Boueieault v. Delafield, 69, 239, 240 
 Boulton V. Beard, 80, 123 
 Bouverle, Ex parte, 207 
 Bowen, Re, 307 
 Bower v. Cooper, 80, 91 
 Bowes' Estates, Be, 199 
 
 — V. Heap, 176 
 Bowyer v. Beaumont, 384 
 Boxmoor, Ex parte, 207 
 Boycott V. Newman, 91, 124 
 Boyd V. Heinzelman, 60 
 Boyle, Re, 322, 327, 328, 329 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXVU 
 
 Boynton v. liichardson, lOS, 109 
 Boys V. Bradley, 99 
 Bozon 1-. BoUand, 390, 394, 397 
 Brace i: Duchess of Marlborough, 134, 
 158 
 
 — V. Ormonde, 125 
 Bracey, Re, 332 
 Bradberry v. Brook, 97 
 Bradbury v. Shawe, 260, 268 
 Bradley v. Heath, 84 
 
 — V. JIunton, 222, 272 
 Bradshaw, Ex parte, 190 
 
 — V. Bradshaw, 2, 30, 290 
 
 — V. Fane, 199 
 Braithwaite, Ex parte, 194 
 Brandon v. Brandon, 199, 207, 208 
 Branmer's Estate, Re, 206 
 Brassington v. Brassuigton, 30 
 Bray r. Hine, 296 
 
 — V. 'West, 292 
 Braye, Re, 202 
 
 Braye (Baroness of), Ex parte, 196, 
 
 199, 200, 202 
 Bridges v. Longman, 182 
 Bright's Trusts, Re, 125 
 Brightens, Ex parte, 156 
 Bristed V. Wilkins, 237 
 Bristol and Eastern Railivay Act, Re, 
 
 203 
 Bristow V. BristO"w, 134 
 Bristowe v. Needham, 277 
 Brocas v. Lloyd, 29, 30 
 Brocklesby, Re, 214 
 Brodie, v. Bolton, 136 
 
 — V. St. Paul, 76 
 Broke's (Lord) Estates, 203 
 Bromage v. Davies, 273, 284 
 Bromley v. Holland, 66 
 
 — V. Smith, 274 
 Brook V. Alcock, 270 
 Brooke, Re, 200 
 Brooks V. Purton, 28 
 
 — V. Snaith, 274 
 
 Brougham (Lord) v. Lord W. Poulett, 
 
 115 
 Broughton v. Broughton, 279, 280 
 
 — V. Lashmere, 50 
 Brown v. Brown, 254 
 
 — V. Dawson, 256 
 
 — V. Douglas, 23 
 
 — V. Groombridge, 115 
 
 — V. I-ake, 255, 272 
 
 — V. Lees, 370 
 
 — V. Robertson, 40 
 
 — u. Sawer, 36 
 _ V. Seweil, 162 
 
 _ V. Weatherhead, 249, 253 
 
 Brown's Case, 227 
 
 Browne, Be, 199, 323, 327, 328 
 
 Browne v. Lockhart, 34, 166 
 
 — V. Smith, 94 
 
 Bruce v. Bainbridge, 178 
 
 — V. Kinloch, 43 
 Bruin v. Knott, 124 
 Brunsdon v. Allard, 397 
 Bryant, Ex parte, 379 
 
 — l: Bush, 179 
 
 — 0. Lightfoot, 26 
 Brymer v. Buchanan, 154 
 Bryon v. Saloon Omnibus Co., 92 
 Buchanan v. Greeuway, 81 
 Buck, Ex parte, 194, 209 
 Buckmaster v. Buckmaster, 412 
 Bucks. Railway Act, Re, 194 
 Buckton V. Buckton, 248 
 Budd's Case, Re, 227 
 
 Budge V. Budge, 382 
 
 Bulkeley v. Earl of Eglinton, 220, 292 
 
 Bull V. Faulkener, 392 
 
 BuUer v. Gardiner, 31 
 
 Bunnett v. Foster, 117 
 
 Bunning v. Bunning, 185 
 
 Burch, Re, 312 
 
 Burchell v. Giles, 27, 348 
 
 Burden ii. Oldaker, 167 
 
 Burford (Corporation of) «. Lenthall, 
 
 66, 145 
 Burge V. Brutton, 280, 283, 398 
 Burge's Case, 227 
 Burgess v. Hately, 68, 94 
 
 — V. Hill, 51, 93 
 
 — V. Wheate, 288 
 Burke v. Hutchinson, 9 
 
 — V. Lidwell, 9 
 
 — V. Smith, 185 
 Burkitt V. Bansome, 136 
 
 — V. Spray, 106, 386 
 Burnell v. Brown, 183 
 
 — V, Duke of Wellington, 58 
 Burney v. M'Donald, 234 
 Burrell v. Delavante, 72 
 Burrell's Estate, Re, 199 
 Burrows v. Greenwood, 123, 300 
 
 — V Locke, 184 
 
 Burry Port Co. v. Bowser, 263 
 
 Burt V. Sturt, 223 
 
 Bush, Re, 305 
 
 _ V. Windey, 130, 132 
 
 Busk V. Beetham, 16 
 
 Butler's Trusts, Re, 218 
 
 — V. Gardener, 263 
 Butterfield, Re, 192 
 Buxton V. Lister, 71, 184 
 Byde v. Masterman, 349 
 Byrne v. Norcott, 295 
 Byrom's Trusts, Re, 201, 207 
 Byron's Settled Estates, Re, 2U2 
 
XXVUl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 C. 
 
 Caddick v. Masson, 57 
 Caffrey v. Darby, 295 
 Caillaud's Patent Tanuing Co. (limited) 
 
 V. Caillaud, 10 
 Callaghan v. Callaghan, 287 
 Callon V. Howie, 260 
 Calmady v. Calmady, 172, 173 
 Calverly v. Williams, 186 
 Calvert v. Day, 7 
 
 — V. Godfrey, 274 
 
 — V. Rooth, 270 
 Camac v. Grant, 17 
 Cambottie v. Inngate, 5 
 Camden v. Benson, 271 
 Cameron's Coalbrook Co., Re, 394 
 Campbell, Re, 345, 389 
 
 — V. Andrewes, 7 
 
 — V. Campbell, 103, 251, 299 
 
 — V. Home, 301 
 
 — V. Solomans, 153 
 Cane v. Allen, 74 
 
 — V. Brownrigg, 167 
 
 — V. Martin, 395 
 Canham v. Neale, 130 
 
 — V. Vincent, 56 
 Cannell v. Beeby, 118, 386 
 Cant, Ex parte, 220 
 Cant's Estates, Be, 191 
 Canterbury (Dean and Chapter of), Ex 
 
 parte, 193 
 Capewell «. Lawrence, 174 
 Capper v. Terrington, 167 
 Carew, Be, 310, 332 
 Carey v. White, 387 
 Carlisle (Mayor of). Ex parte, 206 
 Carmichael v. Wilson, 297 
 Carpmael v. Proffitt, 192, 19G 
 Carr v. Henderson, 126, 134, 252 
 Carrington v. Holly, 48, 57 
 Carrodus v. Sharp, 182 
 Carter v. Barnard, 352 
 
 — V. Carter, 382 
 
 — V. Green, 140, 247 
 Carter v. Palmer, 386 
 
 — V. Sebright, 220 
 Carthew v. Barclay, 34 
 Carven, Be, 308 
 Cash V. Belcher, 83 
 Cast V. Poyser, 30, 31 
 Castellani v. Blumenthal, 39 
 Cater's Trusts, Re, 212, 213 
 Catholic Publishing Co., Re. 101 
 Catlin, Be, 36, 308, 312, 313, 329, 330, 
 
 347, 354 
 Cattell V. Simons, 92, 368 
 Cawdross (Lord), Ex parte, 304 
 
 Cawthorne, Re, 217 
 Cazneau's Legacy, Re, 215 
 Challie v. Gwynue, 59 
 Champ V. Stokes, 309 
 Champernown v. Scott, 391 
 Champneys v. Buchan, 25 
 Chaplin's Trusts, Re, 219 
 Chapman v. Fowler, 275 
 Chappell V. Purday, 69, 105 
 Charlesworth v. Garsted, 42 
 Chase V. Westmore, 396 
 Chater v. Maclean, 286 
 Chatteris v. Young, 110 
 Cherry's Settled Estates, Re, 205 
 Chertsey Market Case, 145 
 Chesterfield u. Janssen, 176 
 Chewett v. Jones, 85 
 Chichester v. Hunter, 56 
 Chilton V. Campbell, 34 
 
 — V. Crosby, 66 
 Chilwellw. Hocknell, 126 
 Cholmondeley v. Clinton, 395 
 Chowick V. Dimes, 56 
 Christ Church, Ex parte, 202 
 Christian v. Chambers, 271 
 
 — V. Field, 392 
 
 — V. Foster, 117 
 Christmas, Be, 36 
 Christophers v. White, 280 
 Church V. Marsh, 267 
 Churchill, Ex parte, 43 
 Clack V. Carlon, 280 
 
 Clanricarde (Lord) v. Henning, 174, 
 
 177, 278 
 Clarborough (Vicar of). Ex parte, 206 
 Clare v. Wood, 159 
 Clark, Be, 359 
 
 — V. Clark. 375 
 
 — V. Fergusson, 4 
 
 — V. Gill, 29 
 
 ~ V. Malpas, 350, 353, 356, 357 
 
 — V. Watkius, 34 
 Clarke's Case, 228 
 Clarke, Re, 98 
 
 — V. Hart, 97, 98 
 
 — V. Jaques, 31 
 
 — V. Pyke, 264 
 
 — ». Tipping, 57 
 
 — V. Wilmot, 83 
 
 — V. Wyburn, 97 
 ClarksontJ. Barber, 312 
 Clay, Ex parte, 221 
 
 Clayton v. Clarke, 115, 250, 251 
 Clayton v. Meadows, 18, 20, 318 
 Cleveland (Duke of), Harte Estates, 199 
 Cliff V. Wadsworth, 164 
 ClifiFe V. Wilkinson, 15 
 Clifford V. Turvill, 393 
 Clifton V. Orchard, 69, 149 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXl.K 
 
 Clifton's Case, 226 
 Clissum f. Dewes, 1 19 
 C lough V. Cross, 375 
 Clowes V. Beck, 75, SO 
 Glutton V. Pardon, 66, 390 
 Clvne V. Clyue, 103 
 Coates V. Coates, 125 
 
 — V. Hankyard, 90, 344 
 Cochrane r. Fearon, 12 
 
 — V. O'Brien, 154 
 
 — V. Willis, 19 
 Cockburn v. Raphael, 236 
 Cockell V. Taylor, 151, 165, 177, 232 
 Cockle V. "Whiting, 283, 2S6 
 Cocks V. Purday, 34 
 
 — V. Stanley, 79 
 Cockroft V. SutcliflFe, 301 
 Codrington (Lady) v. England, 149 
 Colburn v, Simms, 71, 108 
 
 Cole, Re, 361 
 
 — V. Burgess, 130 
 Colebrook v. Jones, 4 
 Colegrave v. ilanley, 395 
 Coles V. Forrest, 166, 167, 163 
 CoUard i. Cross, 376 
 
 — V. Roe, 106, 179 
 Collett V. Preston, 93 
 Collier ;;. Dudley, 293 
 Collins, Ex parte, 1 9 1 
 
 — o. Burton, 101 
 
 — V. Carey, 280 
 
 — V. Collyer, 375 
 
 — V. Reece, 233, 299 
 
 — V. Shirley, 81, 82 
 CoUinson v. Collinson, 173 
 CoUis V. CoUis, 49 
 
 — V. Robinson, 294 
 Colman v. SareU, 93, 289 
 Colquhoun,E«, 89, 93, 242, 328, 344 
 Colyer v. Colyer, 121, 129, 362 
 
 — V. Dudley, 120 
 
 — V. Durley, 108 
 
 Commercial Discount Co. (limited), Re, 
 
 225,229 
 Commerall v. Poynton, 394 
 Congreve, Re, 347 
 Connell v. Hardie, 1 56 
 Conrad v. Haumer, 277 
 Consett V. Bell, 278 
 Const V. Barr, 316 
 
 — V. Ebers, 27, 38 
 Cook V. Bromhead, 286 
 
 — r. Gillard, 309 
 
 — V. Earl of Rosslyn, 78, 154 
 Cooke V. Brown, 159 
 
 — V. Fryer, 253, 256 
 
 — V. Turner, 351 
 
 Cooksonv. Bingham, 110, 134,223,224 
 Cooper V. Ewart, 317 
 
 Cooper «. Hewson, 394 
 
 — V. Lewis, 48 
 
 — (•. Pitcher, 92, 127 
 
 — u. Earl of Powis, 23 
 
 — V. Purton, 13, 14, 17 
 
 — I'. Ricardo, 25 
 Cooper's Case, 229 
 Cooth V. Jackson, 68 
 Copley, Ex parte, 208 
 Coppin V. — , 261 
 
 — v. Coppin, 76 
 
 Corbett v. Corbett, 265, 266 
 Cormack v. Beisley, 89, 398 
 Cornish v. Guest, 174 
 Corry v. Curlewis, 36 
 Costello, Ex parte, 227 
 Costerton v. Costerton, 132 
 Cotterell's Case, 227 
 Cotton, Re, 356 
 
 — 0. Clarke, 121, 128, 240 
 
 — V. Luttrel, 262 
 
 — V. Penrose, 126 
 Coulsting V. Coulsting, 238 
 Course v, Humphrey, 88 
 Court V. Jeffery, 63 
 
 — V. Robarts, 103 
 Courtney v. Stock, 285 
 Courtoys v. Vincent, 38 1 
 Coutan V. Williams, 153 
 CoTentry (Justices of). Re, 43, 216 
 
 — V. Bentley, 148 
 
 — V. Coventry, 303 
 Covington's Will, Re, 212 
 Cowdell V. Neate, 304, 305 
 Cowdray v. Cross, 376 
 Cowdry v. Day, 161 
 Cowell V. Simpson, 396, 397 
 
 — V. Watts, 185 
 Cowley V. Cowley, 78 
 Cowper V. Scott, 97, 105 
 Cox V. Chamberlain, 178, 180 
 
 — V. Cox, 173 
 
 — V. Stephens, 64 
 
 — V. Toole, 160 
 Coyle V. AUeyne, 371 
 Coysgarne v. Jones, 131 
 Cozens v. Graham, 309 
 Crackelt w. Bethune, 121 
 Cradock v. Owen, 117 
 
 — V. Piper, 98, 280, 281 
 Craig V. Bolton, 13 
 
 — V. Watson, 279 
 Cranstown v. Johnson, 75 
 Crausew. Cooper, 77 
 Crawford v. Fisher, 154 
 Crawshay v. Thornton, 43, 104 
 Creech St. Michael (Vicar of), Ex 
 
 parte, 202 
 Cresswell v. Byron, 398 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Cresswell v. Cheslyn, 110 
 
 — V. Haines, 186, 192 
 Crew V. Joliffe, 243 
 Croome v. Lediard, 182 
 
 Crosbie v. Mayor of Liverpool, 111 
 Cross V. Cross, 58 
 
 — V. Kennington, 136 
 
 Crosse v. General R.versionary Co., 
 
 133,158 
 Crosskill v. Bower, 294 
 Crossley v. Crowther, 62 
 
 — V. Stewart, 27 
 Crouch V. Waller, 258, 264 
 Crowder v. Shee, 305 
 Crowe V. Ballard, 176 
 Crowley's Case, 375 
 Crowther v. Flood, 252 
 Croy den's Trusts, Re, 212 
 Crystal Palace Railway Co., Re, 190 
 Cuffe V. Young, 375 
 CuUingworth v. Lloyd, 73 
 Cummingsti. Bromfield, 293 
 
 Curre v. Bowyer, 130 
 Curling v. Austen, 85 
 Currie, Re, 322, 324 
 
 — V. Pye, 247 
 Cartels v. Candler, 119. 
 Curtis V. Lloyd, 48 
 
 — V. Robinson, 123 
 Cust V. Southee, 7 
 Cutfield V. Richards, 158 
 Cuthbert, Re, 284 
 
 D. 
 
 Daintree v. Haynes, 266 
 Dakins v. Whymper, 290 
 Dakyns v. Garratt, 34, 36 
 Dameru. Lord Portarlington, 59 
 Danford v. Cameron, 264 
 Daniel v. Harding, 57 
 Darley v. Nicholson, 39 
 Dartmouth v. Holdsworth, 37 
 Dashwood; Ex parte, 190 
 Davenish v. Brown, 19 
 Davenport v. Davenport, 8, 9, 268 
 ■ — V. James, 166 
 
 — u. Jepson, 70 
 
 — V. Manners, 36 
 Davey v. Bennett, 11, 15 
 
 — V. Durrant, 29, 30 
 
 — V. Plestow, 150 
 David, Re, 314 
 Davies, Re, 327 
 Davies, Ex parte, 219 
 
 — V. Bush, 398 
 
 — V. Cooper, 176 
 
 — V. Griffiths, 101 
 
 — V. Marshall, 351, 354, 355, 357 
 
 Davies v. Nixon, 366 
 
 — V. "Whitmore, 82 
 
 — V. Williams, 77 
 Davis V. Austen, 112 
 
 — V. Cripps, 349 
 
 — V. Earl of Dysart, 308, 341, 352, 
 354 
 
 — V. Prout, 24 
 
 — V. Reid, 18 
 
 — V. Symonds, 184 
 
 — V. Turvey, 174 
 Dawson, Re, 328, 334 
 
 — V. Ellis, 85 
 
 — 0. Jay, 31 
 
 Day K. Croft, 43,44,216 
 
 — V. Day, 399 
 Deacon v. Deacon , 83 
 Dean v. Morris, 90, 116 
 Deanew. Lord Waterpark, 185 
 Dearden, Re, 327 
 
 De Beauvoir's Settled Estates, Re, 193 
 
 Debeuham v. Ox, 75 
 
 De Combe v. Combe, 84, 238, 372 
 
 De FenchSres v. Dawes, 3 1 5 
 
 De Geneve v. Hannam, 14 
 
 Delawney v. Delawney, 26 
 
 Dell V. Barton, 96 
 
 Deller v. Simmonds, 185 
 
 De Montmorency v. Devereux, 73, 278 
 
 Denny v. Mars, 1 7 
 
 Dent V. Warden, 26 
 
 Desprez v. Mitchell, 5 
 
 Detilin v. Gale, 109, 157, 160, 164 
 
 Devey v. Thornton, 302 
 
 Dew V. Clarke, 22, 150, 369 
 
 Dewdney; Ex parte, 306 
 
 Dewes v. Beresford, 375 
 
 Dicker v. Hamer, 95 
 
 Dickenson v. Lockyer, 76 
 
 — V. Marie, 87 
 Dickson, Re, 329, 334 
 Dickson's Trusts, Re, 217 
 Digby V. Brown, 275 
 Dillon V. Ashwin, 82 
 
 — V. Mc Carthy, 260 
 Dimes v. Wright, 309 
 Dinning v. Henderson, 196, 209 
 Divers, Ex parte, 190, 209 
 Dixon V. Jackson, 193 
 
 — V. Parkes, 50 
 Dobson V. Lund, 167 
 
 D'Oechsner ^. Scott, 257, 259, 290, 
 
 .381 
 Dodson V. Juda, 151 
 Dolly V. Challin, 24 
 Dolman, Re, 12 
 
 Doncaster's Settled Estates, Re, 204 
 Doody V. Higgins, 124 
 Douglas V. Archbutt, 34, 295 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Douglas V. Cooper, 67 
 
 Dowden c. Hook, 8 
 
 Downing College Case, 141, 352 
 
 Downes, Re, 321, 330, 335, 337 
 
 Dowson r. Hardcastle, 152, 155 
 
 Drake, Re, 322, 32S, 332, 334, 335 
 
 — c. Symes, 11 
 Dresser v. Morton, 263 
 Drew, Re, 325 
 
 — i). Clifford, 310 
 
 — V. Harman, 167 
 
 Drinan i\ JIannix, 8, 13, 16,257 
 Driver v. Maudesley, 12 
 Dryden v. Frost, 16S, 170 
 
 — V. Walford, 56 
 Dufaur v. Sigel, 68 
 
 Dugdale i: Dugdale, 111, 113, 124 
 
 — V. Johnson, 41 
 Duncan i: Tarty, 69, 70 
 Duncomte r. Lewis, 24 
 Dundas v. Dutens. 6l 
 Dungey r. Angove, 154, 284 
 Dunlop V. Hubbard, 155- 
 Dunn V. Dunn, 249, 251, 391 
 Dunning v. Hards, 137 
 Dunstan v. Patterson, 85 
 Dunt V. Dunt, 328 
 
 Durham (Bishop of). Ex parte, 204, 
 206 
 
 — v. Knight, 260 
 Dylar's Estate, Re, 201 
 Dyott V. Dyott, 13 
 
 E. 
 
 Eady v. Watson, 218 
 
 Earp V. Lloyd, 27 
 
 East V. Ryall, 295 
 
 East of England Bank, Re, 366 
 
 East India Docks, &c. Act, Re, 190 
 
 East Norfolk Railway Act, Exparte,199 
 
 Eastern Counties l.ailway Co.'s Act, 
 Ee, 194 
 
 Eastern Counties Railway Co. v. Tnf- 
 nell, 192 
 
 Eaves v. Dickson, 295 
 
 Ecclesw Liverpool Borough Bank,41,42 
 
 Edelsten v. Edelsten, 72 
 
 Eden v. Thompson, 44, 197, 199, 271 
 
 Edenborough v. Archbishop of Canter- 
 bury, 291, 293 
 
 Edensor v. Roberts, 153 
 
 Edgecumbe v. Carpenter, 291 
 
 Edmeade's Estates, Re, 205 
 
 Edridge v. Edridge, 238 
 
 Edwardes v. Burke, 3 
 
 Edwards v. Burt, 176, 177 
 
 — V. Edwards, 53 
 
 — V. Grove, 47 
 
 Edwards v. Harvey, 178, 179, 238 
 
 — V. Jones, 233 
 
 — V. Lawless, 306 
 Egg V. Devey, 57 
 
 Eglin V. Saunderson, 120, 121 
 
 Egmont V. Darell, 70 
 
 Egremont (Lord) v. Thompson, 197 
 
 Elborne v. Goode, 110 
 
 Eldridge, Re, 313 
 
 Electric Telegraph Co. of Ireland, Re, 
 
 227 
 EUice V. Ronpell, 149 
 Elliot V. Ince, 8 
 ElUotson r. Knowles, 233 
 Ellis, Ex parte, 312 
 
 — V. Ellis, 251 
 
 — V. King, 94, 95 
 
 — V. Walmesley, 42, 369 
 Ellison's Settled Estates, Re, 204 
 
 — V. Wright, 168, 169 
 Elmsley, Re, 310, 324 
 Elsam V. Alcock, 270 
 Elsey V. Adams, 51, 52 
 
 — V. Cox, 255, 288 
 
 — V. Lutyens, 288, 289 
 
 Elt V. Burial Board of Islington, 349 
 Elton V. Elton, 172 
 Elwes, Re, 230 
 Emerson v. Dallison, 28 
 Empringham v. Short, 364 
 Engleheart v. Moore, 306, 309 
 England K. Codrington, 161 
 
 — V. Downs, 298 
 
 — (Bank of) v. Parsons, 238 
 Ennis y. Brady, 231 
 
 Era Insurance Co., Re, 227 
 Ernestu. Partridge, 351, 354, 383, 448 
 
 — V. Weiss, 78 
 Erskine's Trusts, Re, 212 
 Esdaile v. Peacock, 85 
 
 Eton College, Ex parte, 205, 206, 207 
 Evans t). Evans, 19,223 
 
 — V. Lewis, 86 
 
 — V. Rosser, 21 
 Evelyn v. Chippendale, 4 
 Everett v. Backhouse, 76 
 Everson v. Matthews, 264 
 Eyre, Re, 313 ^ 
 
 — V. Dyer, 14 
 
 — V. McDowell, 102 
 
 — V. Marsden; 105, 106, 110 
 Ezart V. Lister, 284 
 
 Fagg, Re, 213 
 Fairland v. Enever, 397 
 Fallows V. Lord Dillon, 86 
 Farewell v. Coker, 39^ 
 
TABLE or CASES. 
 
 Farina v. Silverlock, 68 
 Farquharson v. Pitcher, 42 
 Farlow v, Weildon, 274 
 Farr v. Sheriffe, 88 
 Farrar v. Lord Winterton, 187 
 Farrell v. Gleeson, 76 
 Farrow v. Rees, 79, 350 
 Fawkes v. Pratt, 285 
 Fearn v. Wilson, 305 
 Fearns v. Young, 2, 249 
 Felkin w. Herbert, 371 
 
 — V. Lewis, 4 1 
 Fellowes v. Deere, 11,15 
 Fellows' Settlement, Re, 220 
 Fellows V. Barrett, 8 
 Feltham's Trusts, Re, 217 
 Fenner v. Taylor, 127 
 Fenton v. Brown, 186 
 
 — V. Crickett, 347 
 
 Fergus Navigation and Embankment 
 
 Co. V. Kingdon, 62 
 Fernandez v. Corbin, 364 
 Fewster v. Turner, 185 
 Fidelle v. Evans, 50 
 Field, Re, 218, 315 
 
 — V. Churchill, 75 
 • — V. Robinson, 59 
 
 Fielder v. Higginson, 180, 271 
 Fife V. Clayton, 185 
 Finch, Re, 326, 327, 329 
 Finden v. Stephens, 22 
 Findlay v. Lawranee, 36, 55 
 Firmin v. Pulham, 123, 301 
 Fisher, Re, 313, 329 
 
 — V. Banbury, 4 
 
 — V. Brierley, 100 
 
 — V. Fisher, 57 
 
 Fishmongers' Co., Ex parte, 208 
 Fitton V. Macclesfield, 264 
 Fitzgerald v. Bult, 148 
 
 — V. Fitzgerald, 276 
 
 — V. Pringle, 297 
 Fitzmaurlce v. Sadleir, 385 
 Flanagan v. Nolan, 120, 300 
 Flattery v. Anderson, 264 
 Fleetwood v. Green, 183 
 
 — , &c.. Railway Co., Ex parte, 192 
 
 Fletcher, Ex parte, 218 
 
 Flight V. Robinson, 146 
 
 Flintoff V. Haynes, 128 
 
 Flockton V. Peake, 353, 356, 357, 381, 
 
 401, 402 
 Flower v. Hartopp, 271 
 Floyd V. Nangle, 366, 285 
 Fludyer v. Cocker, 186 
 Fluker, Re, 312, 314 
 Foley, Ex parte, 12 
 
 — V. Smith, 330, 382 
 Foligno's Mortgage, Re, 313 
 
 Foljambe, Re, 329, 330 
 Forbes v. Taylor, 76 
 Ford, Ex parte, 312, 314 
 
 — V. Lord Chesterfield, 81, 82, 83, 158 
 
 — V. White, 82 
 Forshaw, Re, 395 
 
 — u. Higginson, 302 
 Forster v. Davies, 352 
 
 Fort V. Bank of England, 17 
 Fortescue v. Hallett, 374 
 Forward v. Duffield, 69 
 Foster, Re, 256, 305, 310, 324, 327 
 
 — V. Davies, 2 
 
 — V. Dawber, 302 
 
 — V. Roberts, 176, 177 
 Foulds w. Midgley, 53, 149 
 Fowler v. Davies, 264 
 
 — V. Reynolds, 65 
 Fox V. Blew, 14 
 
 — V. Suwerkrop, 60, 250 
 Fozier v. Andrews, 298 
 Fradella v. Weller, 71, 93 
 Frampton v. Webb, 241 
 Francis v. Francis, 393 
 Frank v. Mainwaring, 248 
 Frankland v. Lucas, 2S5 
 Franklin v. Bank of England, 238 
 Franklyn v. Fern, 160 
 
 Eraser v. Gordon, 102 
 
 — V. Palmer, 7, 279, 281 
 
 — V. Thompson, 89, 241, 243 
 
 — V. Wood, 273 
 Frazer v. Jones, 155 
 
 Freer v. Hesse, 179, 180, 182 
 
 French v. Barton, 57 
 
 Friend v. Solly, 347, 351, 352, 354 
 
 Friswell v. King, 39 1 
 
 Frizell v. Hodges, 254 
 
 Frowd V. Lawrence, 39 
 
 Fry, Ex parte, 265 
 
 — V. Ernest, 383 
 
 — V. Noble, 152 
 
 — V. Richardson, 19 
 Fulham, Re, 220, 221 
 Fuller V. Green, 137 
 
 — V. Morgan, 1 59 
 Furber v. Furber, 82 
 Furze v. Sharwood, 21, 63 
 Fussell V. Elwin, 49, 65 
 Futvoye v. Kennard, 55 
 Fyler v. Fyler, 73 
 Fyson, Re, 325,332 
 
 G. 
 
 Gabet v. Chayter, 92 
 Gabriel v. Sturges, 81 
 Gaffney v. Hevey, 140, 247 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXXlll 
 
 Ga,se V. Lady Stafford, 13 
 Gaitskell, Re, 312 
 Gammon v. Stone, 71, 164 
 Garbet, Ex parte, 156 
 Gardner v. Downes, 302 
 
 — v. Garrett, 131 
 
 — I'. Marshall, 34, 65 
 
 — V. Parker, 111 
 Garforth v. Bradley, 164 
 
 Garey v. Whittingham, 43, 44, 88, 262 
 
 Garish v. Donovan, 93 
 
 Garrod v. Holden, 269 
 
 Garth, Ex parte, 42 
 
 Gaunt r. Taylor, 88, 135 
 
 Geary v. Norton, 72 
 
 Gedge v. Duke of Montrose, 186 
 
 Gedye, Re, 305,313, 319 
 
 Gee V. Cottle, 268 
 
 — V. Pearce, ISS 
 Geils r. Geils, 103 
 Georges ti. Georges, 391 
 Gibbs V. Gibbs, 155, 402 
 Gibson u. Lord Cranley, 93 
 
 — V. May, 391, 392 
 Gibson's Case, 228 
 Giddings v. Giddings, 17, 53 
 Gilbert v. Cooper. 287 
 
 — V. Golding, 163 
 
 — r. Lewis, 239 
 Giles V. Giles, 64 
 Gillon V. Rider, 313 
 Girdlestone v. Creed, 84, 129 
 Gladstone v. Ottoman Bank, 22 
 Glazbrook v. Gillatt, 12 
 Glenham v. Stutwell, 384 
 Gloucester (Corporation of) v. Wood, 
 
 236 
 
 — Charities, Re, 142 
 Glover V. Rogers, 83 
 
 — V. Webber, 253 
 Glynn v. Locke, 153, 154 
 Goate V. Fryer, 129 
 Godfrey v. Tucker, 78 
 
 — V. Watson, 1 69 
 Godley, Re, 193 
 Godson V. Hale, 102 
 Goe's Trusts, Re, 207 
 Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 265 
 
 — V. Kussell, 136, 255, 289 
 Gomley v. Wood, 232, 279, 281 
 Goodday v. Sleigh, 50, 51 
 Goodwin v. Archer, 5 
 
 Gore Langton, Ex parte, 203 
 Gorely v. Gorely, 41 
 Gongh V. Botevil, 243, 245 
 
 — V. Davies, 236 
 Gould, Re, 206 
 
 — V. Barnes, 151 
 
 Gover v. Stilwell, 46 
 
 Governess's Benevolent Institution u. 
 
 Rusbridger, 113 
 Gowing V. Mowbray, 82 
 Gowland v. De Faria, 176 
 Gowram v. Barnett, 4 
 Grace v. Terrington, 127 
 Graham v. Graham, 95, 355 
 
 — V. Maxwell, 130, 131 
 
 Grand Trunk &o. Railway Co. (Official 
 
 Manager of) v. Brodie, 226 
 Grant v. Allen, 83 
 Grant's Trusts, Re, 220 
 Gravenor v. Mills, 275 
 Gray v. Forbes, 103 
 
 — V. Campbell, 371, 374 
 
 — V. Gray, 274 
 
 Great Northern Railway Co., Ex parte, 
 
 211 
 Great Ship Co. (limited). Be, 104 
 Great Western Railway Co., Re, 193 
 
 — V. Metropolitan Railway Co., 19 
 Greedy v. Lavender, 88, 125, 126 
 Green v. Badley, 241 
 
 — V. Briggs, 232, 352, 353 
 
 — V. Charnock, 3, 4 
 
 — V. Gascoyne, 273 
 
 — V. Mercer, 174 
 
 — V. Otte, 239, 260 
 
 — 0. Wakeford, 302 
 Greening v. Greening, 375 
 Greenwood v. Churchill, 317 
 Gregg V. Slater, 71, 170 
 
 — V. Taylor, 314 
 Gregory v. Bessell, 239 
 Gregson, Re, 391 
 Greville v. Greville, 95, 355 
 Gridley v. Austen, 306, 309 
 Grierson v. Astle, 122 
 Griffies v. Griffies, 172 
 Griffiths V. Griffiths, 394, 395 
 
 — V. Ricketts, 6 
 Grigby v. Cox, 262 
 Griggs V. Sturgls, 83 
 Grimes v. Harrison, 402 
 Grimsby v. Webster, 47 
 Grimwood v. Shave, 97 
 Grove v. Bastard, 181 
 
 — u. Sansom, 314, 335 
 
 — V. Young, 243, 245 
 Grover v. Hugell, 185 
 Guilbert v. Hawks, 57 
 
 Guilden Sutton (Incumbent of). Ex 
 
 parte, 193, 194 
 Gurney v. Jackson, 82 
 Guy V. Guy, 53, 250, 253 
 Gwynne v. Heaton, 176 
 Gwyther v. Allen, 109, 112 
 
XXXIV 
 
 TABLE or CASES. 
 
 H. 
 
 Hatingham v. Stansfeld, 175 
 Hadland's Settlement, lie, 218 
 Haigh, Re, 359 
 
 — V. Ousey, 309 
 Hair, Re, 312, 315,360 
 
 — V. Woodbridge, 27 
 Haire v. Levitt, 198, 205 
 Hakewell, Exparte, 258, 264, 269 
 Haldenby v. Spofforth, 122, 296 
 Hale V. Saloon Omnibus Co., 155 
 Hall V. Bennett, 62 
 
 — V, Chapman, 239 
 
 — V. Hallett, 119, 297 
 
 — V. Hodderden, 150 
 
 — V. Laver, 62, 183, 283, 397, 398 
 Haller, Re, 334 
 
 Halliley v. Henderson, 95 
 
 Halsal], Re, 312 
 
 Ham's Trusts, Re, 217 
 
 Hamei'ton v. Rogers, 165 
 
 Hamilton (Duke of) v. Incledon, 393 
 
 — V. Littlejohn, 100, 101 
 Hammersley's Settlement, Re, 218 
 Hammond v. Messenger, 21 
 
 — V. Nearae, 238 
 Hampshire v. Bradley, 300 
 Hampson v. Brandwood, 66 
 Hampstead Junction Railway Co., Re, 
 
 194, 209 
 Handley v. Davies, 112, 123, 216 
 Hannam v. South London Waterworks 
 
 Co., 55 
 Hanslip v. Kitton, 349 
 Hanson v. Lake, 186 
 
 — V. Reece, 398 
 Harbin v. Darby, 282 
 Harborough (Earl of). Ex parte, 194 
 Hardey v. Hawkshaw, 67 
 Harding, Ex parte, 226, 329 
 
 — V. Harding, 274 
 
 — V. Tingey, 22 
 Hardingham v. Thomas, 25 
 Hardwick, Ex parte, 195 
 Hardy's Estate, Re, 208 
 
 — V. Hull, 66 
 Harfortb v. Furrier, 180 
 Harmer v. Harris, 89, 127 
 
 — u. Priestley, 72, 163 
 Harnett v. Yielding, 71 
 Harper, Re, 322, 330 
 Harries, Re, 322 
 Harris v. Hamlyn, 241 
 
 — V. Harris, 72, 152 
 
 — u. Start, 314 
 Harrison, Re, 325, 327, 328 
 
 — V. Coppard, 1 88 
 
 Harrison v. Pennell, 82 
 Hart V. Tulk, 15 
 Hartley, Re, 332, 360 
 Harvey, Re, 286 
 
 — V. East India Co., 368 
 
 — V. Harvey, 123 
 
 — 0. Mayhew, 305 
 
 — V. Mount, 278 
 
 — V. Tebbutt, 161, 152 
 Harvey's Settlement, Re, 341 
 Hastings v. Jugges, 262 
 Hatch V. Searle, 129 
 Hatfield's Estate, Re, 200 
 Hatton's Case, 227 
 
 Hawke v. Kemp, 46 
 Hawkins v. Gardiner, 60 
 
 — V. Hall, 364, 365 
 
 — V. Parson, 175 
 
 — V. Perry, 171, 221 
 Hay V. Bowen, 112 
 
 — V. Farr, 37 
 Hayes v, Bailey, 179 
 
 — V. Cooper, 397 
 Haynes v. Ball, 374, 375 
 
 — V. Barton, 196 
 Hays V. Trotter, 360 
 Haywood v. Grazebrook, 125 
 Headington's Trusts, Re, 214 
 Heap V. Jones, 292 
 
 Heaps V. Commissioners of Churches, 
 
 97 
 Heard v. Cuthbert, 222 
 Hearn v. Wells, 288 
 Heighington v. Grant, 91, 121 
 Heming v. Dingwall, 146 
 
 — V. Leifchild, 347 
 Heming's Trusts, Re, 212 
 Hemming, Ex parte, 329 
 Hemmings v. Wilton, 305 
 Henderson v. Atkins, 16 
 Heneage v. Aikin, 43 
 Hennet v. Luard, 51 
 Henley v. Philips, 297 
 Henniker, w. Chafy, 196 
 Hepworth v. Heslop, 134, 158 
 Herbert v. Hedges, 174 
 Herman v. Dunbar, 44, 276 
 Herring v. Cloberry, 362 
 
 Hertford (Borough of) v. Poor of 
 Hertford, 143 
 
 — Charities, Re, 43 
 Heseltine v. Simmons, 1 79 
 Heslop V. Metcalfe, 395 
 Hewett V. Foster, 129, 297 
 Hibberson v. Cooke, 39 
 
 — V. Fielding, 148, 240 
 Hide V. Haywood, 121 
 Higgins V. Fraukis, 81 
 
 — V. Scott, 397 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 Hill c. Fullbrook, 1 73 
 
 — V. Gaunt, 56 
 
 — V. Kirwau, 63 
 
 — V. Magfiu, 2SS 
 
 — V. Reardon, 7S 
 
 Hilton I'. Lord Granville, 5 
 
 Hind V. Whitmore, 8, 9, 32, 257, 
 
 383 
 Hinder c. Streeton, 187 
 Hindle v. Taylor, 223 
 Hinckley v. Appleby, 87 
 Hinton, Re, 313, 314 
 Hiorns v. Hollom, 82, 162 
 Hirst, Ex parte, 206 
 Hitchens v. Tate, 307 
 Hitchman v. Stewart, 77 
 Hoare's Case, 227 
 Hobhotise v. Holcombe, 277 
 Hobson c. Neale, 33-t, 336 
 
 — r. Shearwood, 396 
 Hoby V. Hitchcock, 3 
 Hoddel V. Pugh, 187, 248 
 Hodge, Ex parte, 206 
 
 Hodges V. Croydon Canal Co., 164 
 
 — V. Smifh, 153 
 
 Hodgson V. Hodgson, 366, 377 
 
 — V. Shaw, 277 
 
 — V. Smithson, 99 
 Hodgson's Will, Re, 217 
 Hodson V. Carter, 186 
 
 — V. Cash, 88 
 
 Hoflick V. Reynolds, 22, 24 
 Hogan, Re, 285 
 
 — V. Morgan, 257 
 
 Hoggart V. Cutts, 153, 154, 155 
 Hoghton V. Hoghton, 85 
 Holbrooke v. Cracraft, 382 
 Holcombe v. Trotter, 56 
 Holden, Re, 195 
 
 — V. Bumell, 125 
 
 — V. Kynaston, 59, 60 
 Holford V. Phipps, 300 
 Holgate V. Haworth, 114, 121 
 Holkirk v. Holkirk, 49 
 Holland, Re, 313, 314 
 
 — V. Gwynne, 312, 314 
 
 — W.King, 271 
 
 Hollingsworth v. Shakeshaft, 78 
 Holmes v. Magrath, 309 
 Holroyd v. Marshall, 100, 101 
 Hoi wood V. Bailey, 182 
 Holwortby v. Mortlock, 93, 397 
 Hoole V. Roberts, 47 
 
 Hood V. Phillips, 61 
 
 — V. Wilson, 136 
 Hooper, Ex parte, 191 
 Hope V. Fox, 260 
 
 — V. Liddell, 30 
 Hopkins v. Adcock, 367 
 
 Hopkins v. Pennell, 1 62 
 Hopkinson v. Ellis, 111 
 
 — V. Roe, 294 
 
 — V. Rolt, 98 
 Hordern, Ex parte, 201 
 Hore V. Smith, 196 
 Horlock V. Priestly, 288 
 
 — V. Smith, 169, 329 
 Horn V. Coleman, 105 
 Hornby v. Matchara, 162 
 Home, Ex parte, 156 
 
 — V. Shepherd, 119, 393 
 Horrocks v. Ledsan, 166 
 Horsfall v. Garnett, 66 
 Horton v. Brocklehurst, 25 
 Hosking V. Nicholls, 78, 256 
 Honsehill Coal & Iron Co. u. Neilson, 
 
 100 
 Hovey v. Blakeman, 295 
 Howard, Re, 310 
 
 — and Dolman, Ex parte, 229, 283 
 
 — V. Queen's Trustees, 155 
 
 — V. Rhodes, 303 
 Howell V. George, 85 
 
 — V. Taylor, 357 
 Howling V. Butler, 18 
 Hubbard, Re, 326, 327, 347 
 Hue's Trusts, 212 
 Hughes V. Chester, 101 
 
 — V. Clerk, 27 
 
 — V. Key, 89, 293 
 
 — V. Lewis, 36 
 
 — V. Murray, 319, 321, 327 
 
 — V. Rogers, 396 
 
 — V Wynne, 272 
 
 Hull and Selby Railway Co., Re, 193, 
 
 196 197 
 Humphrey v. Grey, 7u 
 
 — V. Moore, 2 
 
 — V. Morse, 135 
 
 Hangerford's Trusts, Re, 191, 200 
 Hunt V. Townes, 168 
 
 Hunter v. — , 364 
 
 — V. Daniel, 385 
 
 — V. Page, 83 
 
 — V. Pring, 277 
 Hunter's Case, 228 
 Huntingtower (Lord) v. Sherhom, 57, 
 
 363 
 Hurst V. Hurst, 83 
 
 — V. Padwick, 5, 6 
 Hutchins v. Kerrick, 364 
 Hutchinson v. Freeman, 127 
 Hutchinson's Trusts, Re, 215 
 Hutton V. Sealy, 159 
 Hyam's Case, 227 
 
 Hyatt V. Hyatt, 1 1 6 
 Hyde, Ex parte, 190 
 
 — V. Dallaway, 182 
 
XXXVl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES, 
 
 Hyde v. Hindley, 172 
 — V. Warren, 154 
 
 I. 
 
 Illingwortli v. Nelson, 132 
 
 Ingle, Re, 305, 313, 314, 322 
 
 Inglis V. Campbell, 364 
 
 — V. Mansfield, 99, 106 
 
 Ingram's Trusts, Re, 218 
 
 Ipswich and Bury St. Edmunds Rail- 
 
 •wav Co., Re, 206 
 Irby "«. Irby, 90, 116 
 Ireland v. Bade, 276 
 Irish Land Improvement Society, Re, 
 
 264 
 Irwin V. Rogers, 289 
 Isaac, Re, 39 
 Irving V. Viana, 399 
 Ivimey v. Marks, 309, 310 
 
 J. 
 
 Jaokman v. Mitchell, 75 
 Jackson v. Craig, 223 
 
 — V. Davenport, 5, 14 
 
 — V. Leaf, 130, 132 
 
 — ". Ogg, 73 
 
 — V. Purnell, 55 
 
 — V. WooUey, 292 
 Jacobs V. Hooper, 23 
 James v. Dove, 264 
 
 — V. Harding, 167 
 . — V. James, 247 
 Jamieson v. Teague, 7 1 
 Jefferson v. "Warrington, 312 
 Jeffreys v. Evans, 307 
 Jellicoe v. Price, 65, 109 
 
 — V. Blake, 387 
 
 — V. Sandys, 376 
 Jenkins's Trusts, Re, 215 
 Jenner v. Morris, 45 
 
 Jenour v. Jenour, 105, 106, 113, 384 
 Jerdein v. Bright, 39, 61 » 
 Jessop, Re, 332, 333 
 Job V. Bannister, 76 
 Johnson v. Clarke, 81 
 
 — V. Gallagher, 259 
 
 — V. Gardiner, 243, 245 
 
 — V. Ogilby, 287 
 
 — V. Peck, 385 
 Johnston v. Todd, 67, 117 
 Joliffe V. East, 109 
 JoUiffe, Ex parte, 192, 207 
 
 Jones, Re, 171,214,217, 221,308,324, 
 325, 332 
 
 — V. Batten, 33 
 
 Jones V. Binns, 20 
 
 — a. Brain, 131 
 
 — V. Champion, 257 
 
 — V. Earl of Charlemont, 36, 40 
 
 — V. Coxeter, 66, 87 
 
 — V. Davids, 78 
 
 — V. Farrell, 69, 80, 9 1 
 
 — V. Fawcett, 8 
 
 — V. Gilham, 153 
 
 — V. How, 68 
 
 — V. Janes, 317 
 
 — u. Jones, 130 
 
 — V. Lewis, 1S7, 207, 248, 300 
 
 — V. Mitchell, 1 1 1 
 
 — v. Powell, 250 
 
 — V. Ricketts, 73, 77 
 
 — V. Roberts, 305 
 
 — V. Robinson, 172 
 
 — V. Earl of Strafford, 60 
 
 — V. Tinney, 59 
 
 — V. Wattier, 20 
 
 — V. Welch, 175 
 
 Joseph and Webster, Re, 104 
 Josland, Ex parte, 327 
 Joyce V. De Moleyns, 126 
 Judd V. Plum, 401 
 Jupp V. Geering, 384 
 
 K. 
 
 Kane u. Reynolds, 236 
 Keating v. Keating, 64 
 Keene v. Ward, 309 
 Kelly V. Hooper, 72, 93 
 Kemball v. Walduck, 64, 55 
 Kemp !). Burn, 108, 109, 122 
 
 — a. Mackrell, 384, 385 
 Kendal v. Baron, 375 
 
 ■ — ■ V. Masters, 34 
 
 Kendal and Westmoreland Railway Act, 
 
 Re, 194 
 Kenebel v. Scraftou, 1 58 
 Kennaway v. Tripp, 4 
 Kennedy v. George, 357 
 Kent Coast Railway Company, Re, 193 
 Kerr v. Gillespie, 7, 9 
 Killing V. Killing, 38.1 
 Kilminster v. Noel, 45 
 
 — V. Pratt, 57 
 King, Ke, 39, 238 
 
 — V. Bryant, 137 
 
 — V. Hammett, 137 
 
 — V. King, 86, 99, 130, 183, 301, 302 
 
 — V. Savery, 338, .347 
 
 — V. Smith, 171, 221 
 
 — V. Taylor, 113 
 
 King's College, Ex parte, 206 
 Kirby v. Marsh, 301 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXXVU 
 
 Kirkman v. Booth, 294 
 
 — V. Smith, 161 
 Kinneir, Ee, 3-24 
 
 Kitchener c. Kitchener, 126, 236 
 Knight r. Cory, 6 
 
 — V. de BlaquiJre, 5 
 
 — V. Martin, 123, 300 
 Knight's 'J'rusts, Re, 202, 213 
 Knott V. Cottee, 91, 297, 377 
 Knox i'. Brown, U, 50 
 
 — V. Knox, 3S7 
 
 Lachlan v. Reynolds, 274 
 
 Lacy's Case, 228 
 
 Lake v. Eastern Counties Railway Co., 
 
 1*93, 210 
 Laird v. Tobin, 231 
 Lambert v. Fisher, 70 
 
 — V. Hill, 40 
 
 — V. Peyton, 103 
 Lambeth Charities, Re, 144 
 Lampert v. Lampert, 260 
 Lancashire v. Lancashire, 45, 106, 
 
 247, 302 
 Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Co. 
 
 V. Evans, 50, 54, 76 
 Lancaster, Re, 9, 257 
 
 — V. Thornton, 253 
 Land's Trusts, Ee, 203 
 Landars i'. Allen, 38, 39, 371 
 Lander v. Ingersol, 255, 2S4 
 
 — V. Parr, 3, 9 
 Lane v. Glenny, 30? 
 
 — V. Oliver, 388 
 
 — V. Sterne, 38, 278 
 Lane's Trust's, Re, 214 
 Langford v. May, 31, 101, 104 
 Langdale v. Langdale, 49 
 Langham v. Great Northern Railway 
 
 Co., 51 
 Langley v. Fisher, 19, 73 
 Lann v. Church, 397 
 Larkins v. Paxton, 136 
 Latham v. Henrick, 57 
 _ V Hyde, 305 
 Latta, Ee, 12 
 
 Lautour w. -Holcombe, 16, 17, 55, 382 
 Laver v. Fielder, 75 
 Law, Re, 314 
 
 — V. Rigby, 131 
 La-wley v. Hooper, 161 
 Lawrence v. Bowie, 122, 290 
 Lawrenson v. Butler, 71 
 Lawson v. Dickenson, 392 
 Lawton v. Lawton, 129, 130 
 Layton v. Mortimore, 209 
 Lazarus, Re, 215 
 
 Leak, Re, 891 
 
 Leake's Trusts, Re, 212, 215, 218 
 
 Leather Cloth Co. u. American Leather 
 
 Cloth Co., 69, 75 
 I-eather Cloth Co. v. Breessy, 26, 70 
 Lechmere v. Brazier, 137, 274 
 Lecky v. Murray, 150 
 Lee, Ex parte, 398 
 Lee V. Brown, 74 
 
 — V. Delaue, 6 7 
 
 — V. Lee, 56 
 
 — V. Pain, 93 
 Leedham v. Chawner, 291 
 Leeds v. Lewis, 95 
 
 — Waterwork Act, Re, 200 
 Lees, Ee, 305, 331 
 
 Legg V. Mackrell, 292 
 Legg's Estate, Re, 199 
 Leman v. Alie, 71, 246 
 Lester v. Archdale, 36 
 
 — y. Lazarus, 306 
 
 Le Texier v. Margravine of Anspach, 
 
 278 
 Lett, Re, 347 
 Letts, Re, 327 
 Lever ^..Heritage, 54 
 Levett V. Letteney, 38 
 Lewes, Re, 171, 220, 222 
 Lewin, Re, 312 
 
 — V. Guest, 180 
 Lewis V. Armstrong, 42 
 
 — V. Evans, 365 
 
 — V. John, 160, 169 
 
 — V. Lewis, 273 
 
 — V. Loxham, 68, 180 
 
 — V. Primrose, 309 
 
 — V. Smith, 33, 106 
 
 Leyland v. Illingworth, 186, 271 
 Lill V. Robinson, 7 1 
 Lilley's Trusts, Re, 305, 349 
 Lillic V. Legh, 75, 101, 102 
 
 — 17. Lillie, 4 
 
 — V. Medlicoft, 300 
 Lincoln v. Windsor, 280 
 
 Lind V. Isle of Wight Ferry Co., 78 
 Lindsey v. Tyrrell, 252 
 Linley v. Taylor, 115 
 Lister v. Bell, 96 
 
 — V. Leather, 50, 51, 288 
 
 — V. Lister, 369 
 Litchfield v. Brown, 181 
 Littlehalls v. Gascoyne, 296 
 Littlewood V Collins, 46 
 
 Liverpool and Manchester Railway 
 Act, Re, 203 
 
 — &c. Railway Co., Re, 206 
 Livingstone v. Cooke, 374 
 Lloyd, Ex parte, 228 
 
 — V. Cocker, 221 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Lloyd V. Makeam, 11 
 
 — ti. Mason, 398, 399 
 
 — V. Solicitors' and General Assurance 
 Co, 40 
 
 — V. Spillet, 299 
 Lock V. Lomas, 82 
 Locke II. Bromley, 240 
 
 — V. Nash, 48 
 Lockett V. Cary, 30 
 Lookhart v. Hardy, 119, 312 
 
 — V. Reilly, 296 
 
 Lodge V. Pritchard, 289, 300 
 Loftas V. Swift, 157, 160, 163 
 London Assurance Co. v. Hankey, 149 
 
 — (Bishop of) Ex parte, 106, 195, 202 
 
 — and Birmingham Railway Act, Re, 
 205 
 
 — and Birmingham and Buckingham- 
 shire Railway Co., Re, 356 
 
 — and Blackwall Railway Co. v. lyime- 
 house Board of Works, 41, 46 
 
 — and Brighton &c. Railway Co., Re, 
 194, 202,207 
 
 — and Brighton &o.. Railway Co. ,-. 
 the Shropshire Union Railway &c. 
 Co., 202 
 
 — Chatham and Dover Railway Co., 
 Re, 193 
 
 — (Corporation of) v. Attorney Gene- 
 ral, 234, 235 
 
 . — and County Insurance Co., Re, 227 
 
 — (Mayor of) v. Haberdashers' Co., 368 
 
 — and North Western Railway Co., 
 Be, 195, 199 
 
 — and North Western Co.'s Act, 196, 
 200, 202 
 
 — and Southwestern Railway Co., Re, 
 202 
 
 — and South Western Railway Co.'s 
 Act, Re, 195 
 
 — and South Western Railway Co.'s 
 Extension Act, Re, 211 ' 
 
 — and South Western Railway Co. u. 
 Bridger, 187, 192 
 
 Lonergau v. Rokeby, 3 
 Long w. Collier, 182 
 
 — V. Storie, 383 
 
 Long's Estate, Re, 194, 196 
 Longman v. Barham, 53 
 Longworth's Estate, Re, 191 
 Lonsdale v. Berchtoldt, 1 1 1 
 Loomes v. Stotherd, 1 1 9 
 Lopes V. De Tastet, 20 
 Lord V. Kellett, 62 
 
 — V. Lord, 74, 112 
 
 — • f. Wormleighton, 394 
 Lorimer, Re, 217, 218 
 
 — V. Lorimer, 383 
 
 Lothian (Marquis of) v. Garforth, 367 
 
 Loughborough, Re, 305, 328, 329 
 Loveband's Settled Estates, Re, 206 
 Lovell V. Galloway, 149 
 
 — V. Yates, 35 
 Low V. Carter, 119 
 Lowndes v. Robinson, 16 
 Lowry v. Fulton, 63 
 Lowson V. Copland, 302 
 
 Lowton V. Mayorof Colchester, 368,384 
 Lucan (Lord) v. Latouche, 4 
 Lucas V, Calcraft, 151 
 
 — V. Peacock, 352, 354, 396, 397 
 
 — V. Roberts, 309 
 
 Ludlow, (Corporation of) u. Green- 
 house, 234 
 Ludolph V, Sax by, 253 
 Lumley v. Hughes, 6 
 Lund V. Blanshard, 21 
 Luscombe o. Callaghan, 152 
 Luxton V. Stephens, 246 
 Lyle V. Lord Yarborough, 182, 186 
 Lynch v. Leeesne, 28 
 Lyne v. Lyne, 17 
 Lynn v. Beaver, 67 
 Lyon V. Baker, 280 
 Lyse V. Kingdon, 122, 302 
 
 M. 
 
 McAndrew v. Bassett, 72, 73 
 Macarthy v, Macarthy, 1 1 2 
 Macartney v. Graham, 65, 76 
 McAuley v. Adam, 106 
 McCalmont v. Rankin, 97 
 Macclesfield (Lord) v. Blake, 275 
 Macdonald's Will, Re, 208 
 Mackrell v. Hunt, 150, 188, 274 
 Macgregor v. Keiley, 306 
 
 — V. Shaw, 12 
 
 Mackenzie v. Taylor, 114, 250,2 01 
 Mackersy v. Ramsay, 100 
 McMahon v. Burchell, 102 
 
 — V. Leonard, 103 
 McNaughtan v. Hasker, 51 
 McNicol V. Kay, 1 82 
 
 McQueen v. Farquhar, 80, 178, 183 
 Macrae v. EUerton, 132, 159 
 McVeagh, Re, 230 
 Macyntire v Conneil, 23 • 
 Maddison v. Chapman, 117 
 Magennis v. Fallon, 274 
 Major V. Arnott, 9 
 
 — V. Major, 43, 119 
 
 Malcolm u. O'Callaghan, 276, 277 
 Maiden u. Tyson, 180 
 Maling v. Hill, 80, 176 
 Malins v. Greenway, 61, 292, 385 
 
 — V. Price, 69, 356 
 Man V. Ricketts, 245 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 XXXIX 
 
 Manby v. Bewicke, 6 
 
 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire 
 
 Railway Co., Re, 193 
 Manchester and Leeds Railway Co., 
 
 Re, 197, 205, 34S 
 Mandeno v. Mandeno, 118 
 Mander, Re, 312, 319 
 Mann v. King, 31 
 Mannings. Glyn, 306 
 Manson v. Baillie, 281 
 
 — V. Burton, 58, 240 
 Mant V. Smith, 306 
 Maatou v. Roe, 49, 59 
 Maries v. Maries, 61 
 Marriage v. Skiggs, 101 
 Marriott v. Marriott, 245 
 Marrow, Re. 171, 221 
 Marryatt v. Bank of England, 237 
 Marsack v. Reeves, 33, 176 
 Marsh, Ex parte, 226 
 
 — V. Hunter, 28 
 Marshall, Ex parte, 193, 195 
 
 — V. Bremner, 114 
 
 — c. Grime, US, 224 
 
 — u. Holloway, 2S2 
 
 — V. Shepherd, 115 
 
 — V. Sladden,278, 298, 302 
 Martendale v. Falkner, 309 
 Martin v. Maugham, 127 
 
 — V. Pearsse, 292 
 
 — V. Pycroft, 31, 71, 104 
 Martindale v. Lawson, 60 
 Martineau v. Rogers, 113 
 Marwick, Ex parte, 335 
 
 Maryport and Carlisle Railway Co., 
 
 Re, 202, 203 
 Mash, Re, 323, 325, 327 
 Mason v. Bogg, 133, 160 
 Mason v. Franklyn, 65 
 
 — V. Hamilton, 152, 153 
 Massey v. Moss, 126 
 
 — Re, 330 
 
 Mathews v. Chichester, 5 
 Mathison v. Clarke, 280, 295 
 Mavor v. Dry, 26 
 Maw V. Marsden, 36 
 
 — V. Pearson, 345 
 
 May V. Biggenden, 107, 360 
 Mayhe-w, Re, 393 
 Meader v. McCready, 66 
 Meiklam v. Elmore, 57 
 Meliorucchy v. Meliorucchy, 13 
 Melling V. Bird, 196, 198 
 
 — V. Melling, 252 
 Mellish V. Brooks, 63 
 Melward's Devisees, Ex parte, 194 
 Mendizahel v. Hullett, 24 
 
 Menzies v. Connor, 105, 106, 130, 132 
 Merchant Taylor's Co., Re, 207 
 
 Meredith ;■. Hughes, 86, 344, 384 
 Jlerewether v. Mellish, 394 
 Merlin v. Blagrave, 67 
 Merriman v. Bonney, 168, 169, 170 
 Merton College, Re, 106, 202 
 Metcalfe, Re, 359 
 
 — V. Beckwith, 175 
 Metford, Re, 204 
 
 Metropolitan Railway Act, Re, 190 
 Meux V. Bell, 152 
 
 Mexican and South American Mining 
 
 Co. Re, 226, 227 
 Meymott v. Meymott, 356 
 Meyrick v. Whishaw, 69 
 Michel V. Bullen, 86 
 Middle Level Drainage and Navigation 
 
 Commissioners, Re, 200 
 Mid-Kent Railway Act, Ex parte, 192 
 Midland Railway Co., Re, 201, 203 
 
 — Counties Railway Company v. Cal- 
 decott, 192 
 
 — Counties Railway Co. v. West- 
 combe, 186, 192 
 
 Middleton (Lord) v. Eliot, 162, 170 
 Millard v. Magor, 169 
 Miller v. Priddin, 381 
 Millington v. Fox, 66, 72 
 Mills V. Barlow, 261 
 
 — V. Dudgeon, 56 
 
 — V. Farmer, 140 
 Milnes v. Davison, 85 
 
 Minima Organ Co. (limited), Re, 228, 
 
 229 
 Minter, Re, 36 
 Mirehousew. Herbert, 123 
 Mitchell V. Bailey, 63 
 
 — V. Cobb, 212 
 
 — V. Newell, 203 
 Mobbs, Ex parte, 312 
 Mocatta v. Murgatroyd, 161 
 Moet V. Couston, 72 
 Mohun V. Mohun, 290 
 Moir V. Mudie, 395 
 
 Mole, Re, 331 
 
 Molesworth v. Robbins, 390, 392 
 Molyneux, Exparte, 203, 204 
 Monck V. Earl of Tankerville, 26 
 Money, Re, 265 
 Monro w. Taylor, 182 
 Monteifh v. Taylor, 54 
 Montellano (Duke of) v. Christin, 5 
 Montgomerie v. Calland, 163 
 Montgomery, Re, 277 
 Monypenny v. Dering, 258 
 
 — V. Monypenny, 98 
 Moodie v. Bannister, 64 
 Moore v. Frowd, 279, 281, 282 
 
 — V. Moore, 38, 257 
 
 — V. Smith, 348 
 
xl 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Morgan v. Briien, 75 
 
 — V. Compton, 249, 253 
 
 — V. Elstob, 129 
 
 — V. Evans, 100, 103 
 
 — V. Great Eastern Railway Co., 52, 94 
 
 — V. Ruddock, 307 
 
 — V. Scudamore, 384, 385 
 
 Morison v. Morison, 35, 119, 275, 276, 
 
 290 
 Idorley v. Bridges, 163, 170 
 Mornington (Earl of) ;;. Smilh, 37 
 
 — V. Wellesley, 397, 398 
 Moroney v. O'Dea, 165 
 Morrell v. Fisher, 115 
 Morris v. Simmons, 92 
 
 — V. Smith, 397 
 Morshead v. Reynolds, 128 
 Mortimer v. Eraser, 23 
 
 — V. Hartley, 19 
 
 — V. Orchard, 185 
 
 — V. Picton, 293 
 
 — V. West, 252 
 Mortimore, v. Mortimore, 224 
 Moseley v. Virgin, 76 
 Moss, Re, 313, 314 
 
 — Ex parte, 156 
 
 — Syers 34, 349 
 Motteux V. Mackreth, 11 
 Mounsey v. Burnham, 26, 79 
 Mountain v. Young, 215 
 Mourilyan, Re, 38 
 Mouseley's Trusts, Be, 204 
 Mousley v. Easnett, 60 
 
 — V. Carr, 298 
 Mundy v. Mundy, 152 
 Murray v. Barlee, 259, 312 
 Murrell v. Goodyear, 182 
 Musson V. Hackett, 126 
 Murdin v. Patey, 1 87 
 Murphy v. Conway, 102 
 
 — V. Oldis, 269 
 
 — V. Osborne, 236 
 
 — V. O'Shea, 292 
 Murrell v. Clapham, 8 
 Murrow v. Wilson, 13, 14 
 Musgrave, Re, 203 
 
 Mutlow V. Mutlow, 116, 118, 217 
 Mynn v. Hart, 11 
 
 N. 
 
 Nash's Estate, Re, 193, 200 
 
 Nash V. Dillon, 291 
 
 National Assurance and Investment 
 
 Co., Re, 227 
 Neachell's Trusts, Re, 204 
 Neate, Re, 325, 327 
 
 Neave v. Douglas, 412 
 Needham v. Needham 374 
 Nelson (Earl) v. Lord Bridport, 80 
 — • V. Seaman, 64 
 Nesbitt,Ex parte, 391 
 
 — V. Berridge, 21, 72 
 Nevis V. Levine, 174 
 New V. Jones, 279 
 Newall V. Smith, 181 
 Newbegin v. Bell, 134 135 
 Newberry v. Marten, 241 
 
 New Brunswick, &c. Co. v. Conybeare, 
 
 73 
 Newman, Re, 314, 322 
 
 — V. Ha'ch, 135, 136 
 Newton, Ex parte, 200 
 
 — V. Bennet, 121 
 
 — n. Chorlton, 38 
 
 — V. Dimes, 27 
 
 — K. Earl of Egmont, 23 
 
 — V. Hunt, 176 
 
 — V. Lucas, 247 
 
 — V. Rickets, 36, 217, 312, 368 
 Nicholas Brooking's Devisees, Re, 1 9 5 
 Nicholls «. Elford,51 
 
 Nichols V. Haslam, 352, 353 
 Nicholson, Re, 319, 321, 345 
 
 — V. Falkiner, 391 
 
 — V. Jeyes, 356 
 
 — V. Norton, 127, 397, 398 
 Nicloson V. Wordsworth, 180 
 Nixon V. Wilkinson, 285, 286 
 Noble V. Brett, 122 
 
 — V. Garland, 149 
 
 — 0. Meymott, 120 
 
 — V. Stow, 45, 272 
 Nokes V. Gibbon, 29, 30, 31 
 
 — V. Watson, 325, 326, 329 
 Nolan V. French, 14 
 Norcutt V. Dodd, 289 
 Norman, Re, 12, 15 
 Norris v. Leneve, 174 
 
 — V. Timmins, 173 
 NortclifFe u. Warburton, 381 
 
 North V. Great Northern Railway 
 Co., 51 •' 
 
 — V. Gurney, 86 
 
 North Staffordshire Railway Act, Re, 
 
 208 
 Northwich, Ex parte, 204 
 Norton t>. Cooper, 61, 105, 109, 157 
 
 — o. White, 58 
 
 Norway v. Norway, 220, 292 
 
 — V. Rowe, 349 
 Nottidge V. Prichard, 98 
 Nourse v. Finch, 109 
 Nowell V. Whitfaker, 266, 2C8 
 Nye V. Maule, 87 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Xll 
 
 o. 
 
 Oats r. Chapman, 19 
 O'Brien v. Lewis, 307, 330, 398 
 OCallaghan v. Cooper, 295 
 O'Conner v. Sierra Nevada Co., 3, 5, 
 
 17 
 O'Dea V. O'Dea, 394 
 Ogborne v. Bartlett, 16 
 Ogilvy i: Hearne, 15 
 Ogle V. Story, 392 
 Obrly V. Jenkins, SI 
 Oldale I'. Whicher, 6 
 
 — V. Whitehead, 6 
 
 Oldfield V. Cobbett, 264, 374, 383 
 Ommaney, Ex parte, 171, 221 
 Onge V. Trueloct, 383 
 Onslcw, Ex parte, 206 
 Orange v. Pickford, 261 
 Old V. ^yllite, 39 
 Orford (Lord) v. Churchill, 255 
 Ormsby, Re, 277 
 Orpen's Case, 227 
 Osbaldiston, Ex parte, 205 
 Osborne v. Denne, 140, 249 
 Ottley V. Gilby, 137 
 Owen V. Foulkes, 275 
 
 — V. Griffiths, 105, 106, 157 
 Oxford, Worcester and Wolverhamp- 
 ton Railway Co., Re, 194 
 
 Packwood V. Maddison, 131, 132 
 Page, Re, 318, 356 
 
 — V. Page, 9, 257 
 
 Paice V. Archbishop of Canterbury, 1 1 1 
 
 Painter, Ex parte, 220 
 
 Palairet v. Carew, 298 
 
 Palmer, Ex parte. 192 
 
 Palmerston (Lord), Ex parte, 206 
 
 Pannell v. Hurley, 78, 83, 239 
 
 Panton v. Labertouche, 15 
 
 Paradice v. Sheppard, 264 
 
 Parby, Re, 218, 220 
 
 Parker v. Dunn, 44, 275 
 
 — V. Gerard, 172, 174 
 
 — V. Morrell, 70 
 
 — V. Nickson, 26 
 
 — V. Watkins, 169 
 
 Parkinson v. Chambers, 258, 264, 269 
 
 — V. Hanbury, 49, 266, 267 
 Parr v. Lovegrove, 75, 183 
 Parrot v. Palmer, 363 
 Parrott, v. Randall, 261 
 Parry, Re, 216 
 
 — Ex parte, 247 
 
 Parry v. Juxon, 261 
 
 — Trusts, Ke, 45 
 Parsons v. Spooner, 290, 301 
 Partington v. Baillie, 37 
 
 — V. Reynolds, 12, 236 
 Partington's Trusts, Re, 193 
 Pasmore, 12, 15 
 
 Pattison v. Graham, 232 
 Paxtou V. Douglass, 129, 130 
 Payne v. Little, 9, 15, 294, 459 
 Paynter v. Carew, 59, 71 
 Peacock v. Evans, 176 
 Peake v. Gibbon, 83 
 Pearce v. Lindsay, 352 
 
 — V. Newlyn, 74 
 
 — V. Pearce. 49 
 
 ■ — V. Watkins, 84 
 Pearse, Ex parte, 220 
 
 — V. Cole, 39, 283 
 
 — V. Green, 108 
 
 — V. Pearse, 250 
 
 Pearson v. Bank of England, 237 
 
 — y. Belcher, 49 
 Peart, Ex parte, 218 
 Peasnall v. Coulthart, 36 
 Pealfield v. Beans, 299 
 Peck V. Beechey, 87 
 Peers v. Ceeley, 1 70 
 
 — V. Sneyd, 182, 271 
 Peile, Re, 360 
 Peirce v. Lowden, 123 
 
 Pelly V. Wathen, 161, 391, 392, 395 
 Pemberton, Ex parte, 330, 391 
 
 — V. Topham, 59 
 Penfold V. Bouch, 301 
 
 Pender, Re, 305, 310, 312, 318, 354, 
 
 355 
 Pennell v. Roy, 35, 37 
 Pennington v. Alvin, 8, 257 
 
 — V. Buckley, 113 
 Penny v. Beavan, 59 
 
 — V. Watts, 49, 146 
 Perkin i; Stafford, 81 
 Perkins, Re, 312 
 
 — V. Bradley, 161, 235 
 
 — V. Ede, 276 
 
 — V. Hammond, 256 
 
 Perks V. Wycombe Railway Co., 106 
 
 Perrot v Novell i, 5 
 
 Perry v. Meddowcroft, 1 1 9 
 
 — V. Morse, 68 
 
 — V. Newenham, 147 
 
 — V. Shipway, 80 
 
 — V. Walker, 264, 265, 266 
 Pershall v. Squire, 87 
 Peyton, Ex parte, 200 
 Philanthropic Society v. Hobson, 112 
 Phillips, Ex parte, 200 
 
 Philp, Re, 312 
 
xlii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Philpott V. St. George's Hospital, 109 
 
 Philpotts, Re, 324 
 
 Phipps V. Dauteny, 305 
 
 Phcenix Life Assurance Company, Re, 
 
 227,229, 283 
 Pick, Re, 201 
 Pickard v. Mitchell, 197 
 Pickett V. Loggon, 382 
 Pickford v. Brown, 117 
 Pickton's Estate, Re, 196 
 Piers V. Cowse, 262 
 
 — V. Piers, 102 
 Piety V. Stace, 295 
 Pigot V. Cadman, 310 
 Pince V. Beattie, 282, 314- 
 Pinfold V. Pinfold, 50, 54 
 Pinkett v. Wright, 363 
 Pinner v. Knight, 61 
 Piper V. Gittens, 37 
 Pitman v. Edwards, 20 
 Pitt V. Bonner, 26 
 
 — V. Pitt, 268 
 Player ;;. Anderson, 7 
 Play ford u. Hoare, 179 
 Pledge V. Buss, 27, 74, 80 
 Plestow V. Johnson, 15 
 
 Plumstead Waterworks Co. (limited). 
 
 Re, 226 
 Plunkett V. Williams, 30 
 Pocockw. Redington, 121,297 
 Pollard V. Doyle, 80 
 Ponsardin v. Peto, 35 
 ■ — V. Stear, 37 
 Poole V. Francis, 349 
 
 — V. Franks, 86, 233 
 
 — V. Gordon, 27, 28 
 
 — V. Pass, 300 
 Popple V. Henson, 187 
 Portarllngton (Earl of) v. Damer, 130 
 Porter, Ex parte, 26 
 
 — V. Cox, 57 
 
 — V. Watts, 303 
 Portlock V. Gardner, 296 
 Portman (Lord) v. Taylor, 176 
 Postgate V. Barnes, 18 
 Potter's Case, 393 
 
 Powell V. Cockrell, 31 
 
 — V, Lovegrove, 101 
 
 — V. Martyr, 185, 186 
 
 — V. Powell, 58 
 
 — V. Trotter, 163 
 
 — V. Turner, 185 
 
 Powlett (Earl) v. Herbert, 295 
 Praed v. Hall, 59 
 Pratt V. Walker, 31 
 Prebble v. Boghurst, 89, 344 
 Prendergast v. Prendergast, 98, 100, 
 
 104, 294 
 Prevost V. Bennett, 70 
 
 Price V. Berrington, 56, 64 
 
 — V. Dewhurst, 96 
 
 — ij. Humphreys, 385 
 
 — V. McBeth, 282, 337 
 
 — V. Webb, 36 
 
 Pride w. Fooks, 121, 297 
 Prideaux, Ex parte, 309 
 
 — V. Lonsdale, 289 
 Primrose, Re, 220 
 Prince v. Hine, 88 
 
 — V. Howai'd, 94 
 Prothero v. Thomas, 305 
 Prowse V. Loxdale, 383 
 Pryce v. Bury, 156, 160 
 Prytherick v. Havard, 186 
 Pugh, Re, 259, 312, 322, 324, 327 
 Pureell v. Blennerhassett, 74 
 
 — V. Woodley, 249, 362 
 Parser v. Darby, 186, 192, 222 
 Puxley V. Puxley, 117 
 
 Pyle V. Price, 21 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quarrell v. Beckford, 66, 344 
 Queen Camel (Vicar of), Re, 193, 194 
 Queen v. Chambers, 156 
 Qaeen's College Case, 145 
 Queen's College, Cambridge, Ex parte, 
 44, 216 
 
 R. 
 
 RadclifFe, Re, 168 
 
 Railston, Ex parte, 190 
 
 Ralli V. Universal, &c. Insurance Co., 
 
 101 
 Ramsay v. Ramsay, 351 
 Ramsden v. Langley, 168, 169 
 Ranee, Re, 324 
 Randall v. Mamford, 57 
 
 — V. Randall 84 
 Randfield v. Randfield, 117 
 Ransom, Re, 313 
 Raphael t;. Eoehm, 1 2 1 
 Rashleigh v. Master, 246, 288 
 
 — V. Mount, 39 
 Rattenbury v. Fenton, 97 
 Rattray v. George, 28 
 Rawlins v. Lambert, 22 
 
 — V. Wickham, 73 
 Rawlinson v. Moss, 395 
 Eeade v. Bentley, 402 
 -- V. Sparkes, 88, 89 
 Reading v. Hamilton, 206 
 Redfearn v. Sowerby, 391, 394 
 Reech v. Kennegal, 300 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xii: 
 
 Reed r Barton, 2S, 44 
 
 — V. O'Brien, IS 
 Rees, Re, 330 
 Reeves i\ Baker, 57 
 Reg. 0. Eastwood, 360 
 Regents Canal Co. v. Ware, 18S 
 Remnant, Re, 304, 342, 359 
 
 — V. Hood, 72, 88, 125 
 Rex i\ Coram, 234 
 Reynall v. Sprye, 106 
 Reynolds, Re, 40, 363, 389 
 
 — i'. Blake, 273 
 
 — V. Caswell, 306 
 Rhode V. Spear, 54 
 Rhodes, Re, 210, 313 
 
 — Ex parte, 240, 397 
 
 — V. Hayne, 53, 148 
 Rice V. Gordon, 66 
 Richards, Ex parte, 171, 221 
 
 — r. Attorney General of Jamaica, 
 S99 
 
 — L'. Dudley, 40 
 
 — V. Platel, 97, 394 
 Richardson, i. Bank of England, 35 
 
 — V. Jenkins, 136 
 
 — i: Rusbridger, 113 
 
 — V. Ward, 276 
 
 Rickards i: Attorney General, 98 
 Ricketts, Re, 2 1 7 
 
 — r. Lewis, 102 
 
 Rider v. Jones, 165, 233, ?92 
 Ridley v. Meek, 31 
 
 — V. Tiplady, 285 
 
 Rigby V. Great Western Railway Co., 
 69 
 
 — r. Macnamara, 275 
 Ripley v. Moysey, 115, 117 
 Roberts, Ex parte, 226 
 
 — V. Ball, 216, 362 
 
 — V. Kerslake, 243, 245 
 
 — o. Lucas, 306 
 
 — V. Roberts, 93 
 
 — V. Scones, 245 
 
 — V. Totty, 363 
 
 — V. Walker, 110 
 
 — V. Williams, 163 
 Robertson, Re, 204 
 
 — V. Southgate, 384, 385 
 Robertson's Trusts, Re, 217 
 Robey v. Whitewood, 241, 269, 369 
 Robins V. Mills, 310 
 
 Robinson v. Acton, 173, 241 
 _ V. Elliott, 137 
 
 — V. Noftan, 56, 239 
 
 — u. Kosher, 50, 51, 76 
 
 — V. Stamford, 373 
 
 — V. Wood, 273 
 
 Robsoa V. Earl of Devon, 54 
 Rochdale Canal Co. ^. King, 33 
 
 Rochester (Corporation of) v. Lee, 68, 
 
 69, 70, 105 
 Rochfort V. Battersby, 103 
 Rocke V. Hart, 121 
 Roddam v. Hetherington, 248 
 Rodick V. Gandell, 392 
 Rogers v. Goore, 94 
 
 — V. Hooper, 264 
 Romilly v. Grint, 265 
 Rose V. Callard, 178 
 
 Ross's Trusts, Re, 126, 217, 218 
 
 — V. Laughton, 393, 394 
 
 — V. Wood, 285 
 
 Rotherham v. Battson, 232, 239, 260 
 Rowlands v. Tucker, 136 
 Rowley, Re, 171 
 Rowley v. Adams, 43 
 Rowley v. Eccles, 7 
 Rowley's Legacy, Re, 221 
 Royal British Bank, Be, 228 
 Royds V. Rojds, 121, 297 
 Rudyerd's Trusts, Re, 193 
 Rumbold v. Forteath, 33 
 Rundle v. Rundle, 252 
 Russel V. Buchanan, 317 
 Russell, «. Dickson, 76 
 
 — V. NichoUs, 88 
 
 Ruthin (Burgesses of) u. Adams, 62, 
 
 282 
 Ryalls V. Reg., 305 
 
 Sabin V. Heape, 224 
 
 Saffron Waldon Charities, Re, 144, 145 
 
 St. Albyn v. Harding, 176, 177 
 
 St. Bartholomew's Hospital (Trustees 
 
 of). Re, 207, 208 
 St. Catherine's Docks Co., Re, 207 
 St. Leger v. Fergusson, 173 
 St. Thomas's Hospital, Re, 193 
 
 — (Governors of ), Re, 202 
 St. Victor V. Devereux, 264 
 Sale V. Sale, 60, 250 
 Salkeld v. Johnston, 70 
 
 Salop V. Attorney-General, 142 
 Salter v. Bradshaw, 176 
 Sambrook v. Hayes, 64 
 Sammes v. Rickman, 298 
 Samuel v. Johns, 128, 240 
 Sanders v. Benson, 78, 
 _ V. Miller, 117, 118 
 Sanderson v. Chadwick, 187 
 V. Stoddart, 135 
 
 — V. Walker, 297 
 Sandon v. Hooper, 169 
 Sandys v. Long, 5 
 
 — V. Watson, 300 
 
xliv 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Sandys v. Whately, 6 
 Saner v. Deavan, 66 
 Sangar v. Gardiner, 202 
 Sargent v. Gannon, 309 
 Saunders v. Gray, 274 
 
 — V. Saunders, 238, 293 
 Savery, Re, 317 
 
 — V. King, 99, 100, 102 
 Sawston (Vicar of), Ex parte, 194 
 Sawyer v. Birchmore, 19 
 
 — .;. Mills, 59 
 
 Saxon Life Assurance Co., Re, 227 
 Sayer v. Wagstaffe, 322, 329 
 Sayers. Re, 217 
 
 — V. Bradly, 98, 99, 100 
 Scaife v. Scaife, 246 
 Scarborough v. Burton, 65 
 Schneider v. Lizardi, 20 
 Scholefield v. Lockwood, 103 
 Sclater v. Cottam, 282 
 Scoones v. Morrell, 182 
 Scott V. Dunbar, 73, 80 
 
 — V. Corporation of Liverpool, 34 
 
 — V. Scott, 186, 192, 222, 299 
 Scottish Union Insurance Co. «. Steale, 
 
 349 
 Scurrah v. Scurrah, 129 
 Seal V. Bowuton, 245 
 Secretary of State for India v. Kelson, 
 
 153 
 Sedgwick, Ex parte, 225 
 Seers v. Hind, 120, 121 
 SefFken v. Davis, 159 
 Seidler, Ex parte, 12, 14 
 Seilaz v. Hanson, 5 
 Selby V. Selby, 168 
 Sellar v. Griffin, 108 
 Sellers v. Dawson, 239 
 Sentance v. Porter, 66, 164 
 Seton V. Slade, 180 
 Sevier v. Greenway, 161 
 Shackell, Ex parte, 323 
 Shackleton !>. Shaokleton, 231 
 Shales, v Barrington, 76 
 Sharp V. Ashley, 352 
 Sharpe, Re, 217 
 
 — V. Hulett, 67 
 
 Sharpies v. Adams, 156, 157 
 Sharrod v. Winfield, 131 
 Shaw, Re, 230, 360 
 
 — V, Dempsey, 6 
 
 — V. Forrest, 45 
 
 — V. Johnson, 88 
 
 — V. Lawless, 102 
 
 — V. Neale, 389, 396 
 Shea V. Boschetti, 361 
 
 Sheffield (Corporation of). Ex parte, 194 
 
 — (Town Trustees), Ex parte, 195 
 
 — (Waterworks Co.), Re, 195 
 
 Shelburne (Lady) v. Lord Inchiquin, 
 
 253 
 Shelmardine v. Harrop, 161 
 Shepherd v. Churchill, 174 
 
 — V. Twogood, 132 
 Sheppard v. Burbage, 132 
 
 — V. Smith, 300 
 Sherburn v. Middleton, 103 
 Sherwin v. Shakspeare, 186 
 Sherwood, Re, 279, 280 
 
 — V. Beveridge, 274 ■ 
 Shittler v. Shittler, 135, 248 
 Shore v. Shore, 276 
 
 ■ — • V. Wilson, 142 
 Shortley v. Selby, 137 
 Shrewsbury (Earl of) v. Trappes, 35, 
 356 
 
 — and Hereford Railway Act, Re, 194 
 
 — School, Re, 45 
 
 Shuttleworth v. Howarth, 109, 110, 124 
 
 — V. Lowther, 163 
 Shuttleworth's Estates, Re, 205 
 Sibbering v. Earl of Balcarras, 7, 177 
 Sichell, Ex parte, 228 
 Sidebotham v. Barington, 179 
 Sidney v. Wilmer, 198 
 Simmonds v. Lord Kinnaird, 1 47 
 Simpson, Ex parte, 28 
 
 — V. Burton, 6 
 
 — V. Sadd, 377 
 
 — V. Westminster Palace Hotel Co., 98 
 Singleton v. Hopkins, 173, 174 
 
 — V. Selwyn, 19 
 Singleton's Estates, Rfe, 192 
 Siree v. Kirwan, 102 
 Sivell V. Abraham, 51, 52 
 Skidmore, Re, 348 
 
 Skinners' Company v. Irish Society, 
 
 234 
 Skipp V. Wyatt, 165 
 Skrine v. Powell, 149 
 Skrymshire v. Northcote, 110, 238 
 Sladden, Re, 324 
 
 Slater's Devisees, Ex parte, 195, 203 
 Sloggett V. Collins, 1 1 
 
 — V. Viant, 12 
 Sma'l V. Attwood, 100 
 Smallwood v. Rutter, 251 
 
 Smith, Re, 41, 216, 310, 317, 390, 398 
 
 — Ex parte, SOO 
 
 — V. Andrews, 83, 124 
 
 — V. Chambers, 122 
 
 — V. Chichester, 167, 392 
 
 — V. Cornfoot, 6 
 
 — V. Dearmer, 243 
 
 — V. Dimes, 305 
 
 — V. Earl of Effingham, 352, 353, 354 
 
 — V. Etchts, 3,8, 257 
 
 — V. Fry, 289 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xlv 
 
 Smith V. Green, 71, 164 
 
 — V. Hammond, 1 1 
 
 — V. Her Majesty's Officer of State for 
 Scotland, 23i 
 
 — r. Leveaux, 101 
 
 — V. Lyster, 254 
 
 — r. Nelson, 273 
 
 — 1'. Paw son, 267 
 
 — V. Plummer, 232 
 
 — V. Smith, 7, 26, 1 65 
 
 — V. Stuart, 223 
 Snagg V. Frizell, 163 
 Snelling v. Maddocks, 50 
 Snow V. Hale, 2S9 
 
 Snowball v. Dixon, 268, 269, 359 
 Solicitor General v. Corporation of Bath , 
 
 143 
 SoUey V. Wood, 62 
 Solly V. Greathead, 38 
 Soughton (Rector of), Ex parte, 208 
 South-Eastem Railway Co., Ee, 195, 
 
 199, 208 
 
 — V. Submarine Telegraph Co., 53, 148 
 South Molton (Mayor of) v. Attorney- 
 General, 80, 102 
 
 South ATales Railway Co., in Re, 192, 
 
 222 
 Southampton, &c., Co. (Official 
 
 Liquidators of) v. Rawlings, 11, 39 
 Sowry V. Sowry, 195 
 Spencer v. Allen, 377 
 
 — V. Bryant, 263 
 
 Spooner's Estate, Re, 191, 209, 210 
 Springett v. Dashwood, 108 
 Springfield v. Ollett, 68 
 Spires v. Sewell, 383 
 Spyer v. Bernard, 306 
 Squirrel v. Squirrel, 7 
 Stacey v. Spratley, 244 
 Stafford Charities, Re, 145 
 Staffurth v. Pott, 83 
 Stagg V. Knowles, 53 
 Stahlschmidt v. Lett, 338 
 Staines u. Morris, 66, 178 
 Standen v Edwards, 384 
 Stanes v. Parker, 282, 330 
 Staniland v. Willott, 73 
 Stanley i. Bond, 47, 74, 380 
 Stanton v. Hatfield, 136 
 Staples, Re, 218 
 
 — Ex parte, 199 
 
 Starton v. Bartholomew, 252 
 Stedman v. Webb, 390 
 Steedman v. Pool, 38 
 Steele, Ex parte, 306, 396 
 
 — Re, 322 
 
 — V. Scott, 395 
 Stent V. Wickens, 27 
 Stephen, Re, 312, 322,325, 329 
 
 Stephen v. Lord Xewhorough, 250,251, 
 
 294, 354 
 Stephens v. Trueman, 246 
 
 — V. Workman, 40 
 Stephenson v. Mackay, 54 
 Sterling, Ex parte, 391 
 Stevens, Ex parte, 45, 208, 211 
 
 — Keating. 32 
 
 — u. PiUen, 128 
 
 — l: Praed, 69 
 
 — V. Williams, 8 
 Stevenson, Re, 389 
 
 — c. Abington, 89, 127 
 
 — V. Blakelock, 391, 396 
 Stewart, Re, 171 
 
 Stewart u. Marquis of Donegal, 90, 124 
 
 — 0. Menzies, 97 
 
 — V. Semple, 148 
 
 — V. Stewart, 4, 26, 79 
 Stinton V. Taylor, 37 
 Stirke, Re, 327 
 Stock's Case, 227 
 Stocken's Estate, Re, 203 
 Stokes V. Heron, 101 
 
 — V. Trumper, 284 
 Stokoe V. Robson, 161 
 
 Story V. Official Manager of the Na- 
 tional Assurance Co., 37,368 
 — , Re, 335 
 Straford, Re, 332, 335 
 Stratford v. Bosworth, 184 
 Strathmore v. Strathmore, 19 
 Streeton v. Whitmore, 377 
 Strickland v. Strickland, 26 
 Stringer v. Harper, 115, 117 
 Strong V. Strong, 44 
 Strother, Re, 305, 319, 320 
 Stuart, Re, 221 
 
 — V. Greenall, 350 
 Studholme v. Hodgson, 109, 112 
 Sturch V. Young, 45 
 
 Sturge V. Dimsdale, 247, 351 
 Styan, Ex parte, 192 
 Styles V. Shipton, 49 
 Sugden v. Hull, 376 
 Sullivan v. Bevan, 137 
 
 — V. Sullivan, 252 
 Sumner v. Ridgway, 90 
 Sutton V. Doggett, 136 
 Sutton u. Winstanley, 135 
 
 Sutton Harbour Co. v. Hichens, 50, 70 
 
 Swaby v. Dickon, 276 
 
 Swale V. Milner, 135 
 
 Swan's Settlement, Re, 215 
 
 Sivanzy v. Swanzy, 13 
 
 Swift V. Swift, 247 
 
 Swinfen v. Swinfen, 246 
 
 Symes v. Magiiay, 153 
 
 Sympsonu. Prothero, 396, 397 
 
xlvi 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Tabbernor v. Tabbernor, 61 
 Tabuteau v. Warburton, 43 
 Talbot V. Kemshead, 82 
 
 — u. Staniforth, 176, 177 
 Tampier v. Ingle, 31, 35 
 Taner v. Ivie, 156, 165, 249 
 Tanner v. Dancey, 135 
 Tanner v. JJean, 40 
 
 — V. Heard, 91, 159 
 Taprell v. Taylor, 262 
 Tarbuck v. Woodcock, 20, 61 
 Tardrew v. Howell, 135, 248, 400 
 Tarleton v. Dyer, 27 
 
 Tasker v. Smith, 188 
 Tate V. Hitebens, 306 
 Tatham v. Parker, 370 
 Tathara v. Wright, 246 
 Tayler v. Tayler, 382 
 Taylor, Re, 198, 305, 332 
 
 — Ex parte, 206 
 Taylor v. Brown, 184 
 
 — V. Cook, 297 
 
 — V. Glanville, 300 
 
 — V. Haygarth, 67, 115, 123 
 
 — V. Hodgson, 309 
 Taylor v. Jardine, 377 
 
 — V. Linley , 111 
 
 — V. Mogg, 111 
 
 — V. Oldham, 252, 255 
 
 — V. Popham, 105, 397 
 
 — V. Rawlinson, 37 
 
 — V, Salmon, 371 
 
 — V. Southgate, 105, 106, 132 
 
 — V. Tabrum, 121 
 Tchitchagoff's Will, Re, 218 
 Teague, Re, 318 
 
 Tebbs V. Carpenter, 120, 121, 295, 297 
 Tebbutt V. Potter, 50 
 1'empest v. Tempest, 111 
 Temple v. Bank of England, 238 
 Templeman, Re, 341 
 
 — V. Warrington, 43 
 Tench v. Cheese, 349 
 Tetley, Ex parte, 206 
 Thackeray v. Parker. 173 
 Thelluson v. Rendlesham, 100 
 Therry v. Henderson, 131 
 
 Third Burnt Tree Building Society, 
 
 Re, 44 
 Thomas, Re, 171 
 
 — V. Cooper, 163 
 
 — V. Bering, 186 
 
 — u. Jones, 111, 136 
 
 — V. Rawlings, 27 
 
 — V. Townsend, 178 
 
 — V. Walker, 77, 222 
 
 Thomason v. Moses, 67 
 Thompson, Re, 328 
 
 — Ex parte, 400 
 
 — V. CliTe, 1C8 
 
 — V. Cooper, 137 
 
 — V. Kendall, 82 
 
 — a. Thompson, 47 
 Thorby v. Yeates, 301 
 Thorner's Charity, Re, 193 
 Thornhill v. Evans, 165 
 
 — V. Thornhill, 370 
 Thornton, Ex parte, 195, 203 
 Thorp u. Freer, 178, 271 
 
 — V Thorp, 127 
 Thorpe, Ex parte, 28 
 Thurgood, Re, 313, 314 
 Tickner v. Smith, 121 
 Tidwell V. Ariel, 68 
 Tildesley v. Lodge, 156 
 Tilleard, Re, 342, 360 
 Tillotson !'. Hargreaves, 87 
 Times v. Negus, 262 
 Tipping V. Power, 81, 119, 138 
 Tiverton Market Act (Xo. 2), Re, 204 
 Tobin, Ex parte, 228 
 
 Tod V. Tod, 106 
 
 Todd V. Studholme, 279, 284, 286 
 
 — V. Wilson, 282, 330 
 Tofts, Re, 203 
 
 Toghill V. Grant, 359, 361 
 
 Tolson V. Dykes, 369 
 
 Tompson v. Knight, 51 
 
 Toner v. Thompson, 298 
 
 Tookey's Estate, Re, 191 
 
 Tootal V. Spicer, 136 
 
 Topham v. Duke of Portland, 35, 85, 
 
 231 
 iTorre v. Brown, 102 
 Tottenham v. Green, 177, 232 
 Towle, Re, £26, 328 
 Townsend, Re, 171, 221, 222 
 Townshend v, Champernowne, 180, 
 
 181 
 
 — V. Early, 100 
 
 — (Marquis) v. Stangroom, 184 
 
 — V. Westacott, 287 
 Trafford, Ex parte, 195, 204 
 Traile v. Bull, 40 
 Travers v. Townshend, 120 
 Tredwell v. Byrch, 10 
 Trefusis v. Clinton, 275 
 Trew, Ex parte, 1 56 
 Trimleston (Lord) v. Hamill, 163 
 Trinity House (Corporation of). Ex 
 
 parte, 1 94 
 
 — y. Ryall, 68 
 
 Tripp V. Bridgwater and Taunton 
 
 Canal Co., 38, 278 
 Trollope v. Routledge, 118 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xlvii 
 
 Troward v. Attwood, 51, 52, 54 
 Trowers'- Trusts, Re, 215 
 Tryon, Re, 272, 262, 294, 324 
 Tucker r. SaDger, 243 
 
 — V. 'Wilkins, 384 
 
 Tiickley v. Thompson, 133, 160 
 TuDStall V. Freeney, 265 
 Turner Ex parte, 225, 327, 328 
 
 — r. Connor, 131 
 
 — V. Hand, 330 
 
 — v. Letts, 260, 393 
 
 — V. Molyneux, 220, 240, 290 
 
 — r. Turner, 29, 30, 41, 103, 252, 253, 
 257, 347 
 
 Turner's Estate, Re, 190 
 Turqnand v. Knight, 289 
 
 — ii. Ricketts, 245 
 Turwin v. Gibson, 397 
 Tuthillu. Scott, 243, 245 
 Twisleton v. Griffith, 176 
 Tyler v. Tyler, 278 
 Tyler r. Webb, 286 
 Tyler's Estates, Re, 195 
 Tynte v. Hodge, 12, 16 
 Tyson i: Cox, 262 
 
 U. 
 
 Umphelby u.^VaTeney A'alley Railway, 
 
 384 
 Underwood, Ex parte, 393 
 Uppertou V. Harrison, 158 
 Upton V. Earl Perrers, 274 
 Usticke V. Peters, 224 
 Uvedale v. U^edale, 135 
 
 ■\'ale V. Meredith, 81 
 Valentine v. Dickinson, 184 
 Vancouver v. Bliss, 66, 85, 178, 179, 
 
 183, 184 
 Van Sandau v. Moore, 50 
 Vansittart v. 'S'ansittart, 20, 260 
 Vardy, Re, 333 
 Vatighan v. Fitzgerald, 150 
 
 — V. Vandersteyen, 259,391, 395 
 Vawdrey's Trusts, Re, 195, 208 
 Veitch V. Ii-ving, 16 
 
 Ventilation and Sanitary Improvement 
 
 Committee v. Edelslen, 52 
 Verity v. Wjlde, 396, 397 
 Vestris v. Hooper, 57 
 Viall, Re, 171, 221 
 Vickers v. Bell, 99 
 Vincent v. Hunter, 12 
 
 — V. Venner, 332 
 
 Vines, Re, 323 
 Viney t>. Chaplin, 34 
 Vyvyan v. Vyvyan, 155 
 
 W. 
 
 Waddilove v. Taylor, 47 
 Wade V. Stanley, 60, 6 1 
 
 — c. Ward, 159, 160 
 Wagner v. Meard, 266 
 Wainwright v. Sewell, 59 
 Waite V. Barnes, 248 
 Waldo V. Cayley, 35 
 Waldron v. Francis, 136 
 AVale, V. Salter, 8 
 
 Wales (Princess of) v. Earl of Liver- 
 pool, 55 
 Walker, Re, 198. 314 
 
 — Ex parte, 324^ 327 
 
 — V. Easterby, 3 
 
 — ti. Else, 250, 251 
 
 — V. MoUoy, 232 
 
 — V. Moore, 274 
 Wall V. Robinson, 146 
 Wallace v. Patten, 99, 102 
 Waller v. Lacy, 310 
 
 — V. Holmes, 396 
 
 Wallis V. Bastard, 65, 75, 95, 101, 185 
 
 — V. Wallis, 52 
 
 — V. Witham, 124 
 Walrond v. Parker, 364 
 
 — V. Walrond, 21, 121, 260 
 Walsh, Re, 328 
 
 — V. Walsh, 277 
 Walsham v. Stainton, 19 
 Walters, Re, 308, 342 
 
 — V. Pynam, 179 
 Walton, Re, 304 
 
 Vi'arburton v. Blackwall Railway Co., 
 21,24 
 
 — V. Edge, 391 
 
 Ward V. Barton, 169, 170 
 
 — V. Cart Wright, 133 
 
 — V. Hepple, 396 
 
 — V. Shakeshaft, 82 
 
 — V. Ward, 57 
 
 — V. Woodcock, 38, 270 
 
 — V. Yates, 125 
 
 Ware v. Cumberlege, 111 
 Waring, Re, 213 
 
 — V. Manchester, ShefSeld and Lin- 
 colnshire Railway Co., 33 
 
 — V. Williams, 318 
 Warner v. Armstrong, 42 
 Warren v. Postlethwaite, 118 
 Warrin v. Thomas, 74 
 Warry, Ex parte, 156 
 Wastell V. Leslie, 352, 412 
 
xlviii 
 
 TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 Waters v. Taylor, 329 
 ■ — V. Watei-s, 243, 244 
 Watteeuw. Billam, 12, 13 
 Watkins v. Atchison, 150 
 
 — V. Parker, 269 
 Watson, Ex parte, 228 
 
 — V. Birch, 274 
 
 — V. Lyon, 391, 398 
 Watts V. Hammond, 154 
 
 — 1;. Jefferyes, 380 
 
 — 0. Kelly, 7 
 
 — V. Manning, 26 
 
 — V. Martin, 274 
 Waagh, Re, 312, 345 
 
 — V. Waddell, 312 
 Wavell, Ke, 314, 315 
 Wearing v. Count, 83 
 Weatherley v. Ross, 70, 7 1 
 Webb V. Clarerden, 243, 245 
 
 — V. England, 78 
 
 — V. De BeauToisin, 115 
 
 — V. Grace, 310 
 
 — V. Webb, 88 
 Webster, Re, 200 
 
 — V. Le Hunt, 296, 394, 395 
 Weddale v. Nixon, 181 
 Wedge-wood v. Adams, 67 
 Weeks v. Cole, 3 
 Wclohman, Re, 32''., 327 
 Wellesley v. Mornington, 9, 257 
 
 — V. Wellesley, 258 
 
 Wells, Re, 308, 324, 326, 331, 332 
 
 — V. Gibbs, 380 
 
 — V. Malbon, 77, 216 
 
 — V. Wales, 412 
 
 Welch Potosi Lead and Copper 
 
 Mining Co., Re, 227 
 Wescott V. Culliford, 67 
 West u. Jones, 73, 166 
 
 — V. Smith, 40 
 
 — V. Swinburne, 129, 130 
 
 — V. Vincent, 275 
 
 Westby v. Westby, 362, 366, 367, 377 
 Western v. Perrin, 179 
 Wesifield v. Skipwith, 49 
 Westley v. Williamson, 288 
 Weston V. Clowes, 135, 136 
 
 — V. Skipwith, 146 
 Westover v. Chapman, 79 
 Westropp V. Healey, 56 
 Wetherell v. Collins, 166 
 Weymouth v. Boyer, 147 
 Whalley, Re, 341, 345 
 
 — V. Ramadge, 34, 65, 92 
 
 — V. Lord Suffield, 93 
 
 — V. Whalley, 99 
 
 — V. Williamson, 361 
 Wharton v. May, 177 
 Wheatley v. Bastow, 80 
 
 Wheaton v. Graham, 161 
 Wheeler, Re, 171,221 
 
 — V. Malins, 57 
 Whicher, Re, 323 
 Whiohcote v. Lawrence, 297 
 Whicher v. Hume, 247 
 Whistler v. Newman, 295 
 
 — V. Rawlinson, 125 
 Whitcomb v. Minchin, 86, 233 
 Whitcombe, Re, 313, 314 
 White, Ex parte, 327 
 
 — V. Foljamhe, 178 
 
 — V. Gardiner, 293 
 
 — V. Greathead, 3 
 
 — V. Gudgeon, 134 
 
 — V. Hayward, 384 
 
 — V. Hillacre, 285 
 
 — V. Jackson, 108 
 
 — V. Leatherdale, 129, 130 
 
 — V. Lister, 70 
 
 — V. Pearce, 397 
 
 — V. Bishop of Peterborough, 158 
 Whitfield (Incumbent of). Re, 202 
 
 — f. Roberts, 381 
 Whitley v. Martin, 85 
 Whitmarsh v. Robertson, 301 
 Whitmore v. Oxbarrow, 57 
 Whittaker v. Martar, 250 
 Wickenden v. Ragson, 134 
 Wicks V. Scriven, 161 
 Wiggins V. Peppin, 62, 318 
 Wiggington v. Parkinson, 49 
 Wild V. Hobson, 32, 270 
 
 — V. Lockhart, 157, 158 
 
 — V. Murray, 12 
 Wilde u. Wilde, 51, 52 
 Wiles V. Cooper, 88 
 Wilkin V. Rainby, 371 
 Wilkinson, Ex parte, 324, 327 
 
 — V. Allot, 234 
 
 — V. Belsher, 263, 267 
 
 — V. Hartley, 181, 182 
 
 — V. Lewis, 12 
 Willcox V. Bellaers, 178 
 Williams, Re, 287, 319, 320, 395 
 
 — V. Beynon, 106 
 
 — V. Edwards, 186, 188 
 
 — V. Goodchild, 104 
 
 — V. Kershaw, 1 1 1 
 
 — V. Longfellow, 79, 83 
 
 — V. Nixon, 233 
 
 — i^. Page, 84 
 
 — V. Sorrel, 163 
 
 — V. Thomas, 72, 85 
 
 w-n- ^'',^'™^' ^*' ^24, 151, 174, 245 
 Williams's Trusts, Re, 214 
 Willis V. Child, 28 
 
 — V. Hiscox, 300 
 
 — V. Kibble, 295 
 
TABLE OF CASES. 
 
 xlix 
 
 Wills' Trusts, Re, 46, 260, 349 
 "Wilson c. Allen, 180, 181 
 
 — V. Bates, 368 
 
 — V. Broughton, 30, 63 
 
 — V. Brownsmith, 199 
 
 — V. Clapham, 180 
 
 — v. Cluer, 162, 171 
 
 — V. Foster, 199 
 
 — V. Heaton, 116, 117 
 
 — V. Metcalfe, 69 
 
 — V. Patey, 72, 122 
 
 — V. Round, 400 
 
 — V. Squire, 1 13 
 
 — V. Williams, 180, 181 
 
 — V. Wilson, 61, 99, 299 
 Wilton V. Hill, 8, 258, 259 
 Wiltshire r. Smith, 164 
 Winch V. Winchester, 184 
 Winchester (Bishop of) v. Paine, 178 
 Windham v. Graham, 67 
 
 Windsor, Staines, and South Western 
 
 Railway Act, Re, 190 
 Wing V. Angram, 98 
 Winter, Ex parte, 238 
 Winterbotham, Ee, 313, 314 
 Winthrop v. Murray, 37, 49, 61 
 
 — V. Royal Exchange Assurance Co., 3 
 Wisden v. Wisden, 67, 117 
 
 Wise V. Wise, 75, 156 
 Wisewold, Re, 389 
 Withey v. Haigh, 42 
 Witts V. Campbell, 9 
 Wollam V. Heam, 185 
 Wolley V. Brownhill, 86 
 AYoolmer, Ex parte, 226 
 Wontner v. Wright, 158, 162 
 Wood V. Abrey, 176 
 
 — V. Scarth, 1 80 
 
 — V. Wood, 285 
 Wood's Case, 227 
 
 Woodard v. Eastern Counties Railway 
 
 Co., 85 
 Woodburn's Trusts, Re, 212, 213 
 Woodcock V. King, 53, 148 
 
 — V. Oxford, Wolverhampton, and 
 Worcester Railway Co. , 42 
 
 Woodhead v. Marriott, 120 
 Woodman v. Higgins, 162 
 Woods V. Woods, 348 
 Woodward v. Conebeer, 364, 365 
 
 — 0. Haddon, 83 
 
 Woodward!). Miller, 182 
 Wooley, Ex parte, 207, 208 
 WooUett, Re, 341 
 Worgant). Ryder, 152 
 Wortham, Re, 46 
 
 — V. Lord Dacre, 187 
 Wormall v. Williamson, 43 
 Worrall v. Harford, 260 
 
 — V. Johnson, 390 
 
 — V. White, 10 
 Wright V. Angle, 37 
 
 — V. Castle, 60, 62 
 
 — V. Chard, 92, 261 
 
 — V. Howard, 74, 80, 147, 184 
 
 — V. Hunter, 69 
 
 — V. Kirhy, 132, 157, 158 
 
 — V. Mudie, 93, 151 
 
 — V. Tatham, 53, 150 
 
 — V. Taylor, 368 
 
 — V. Wilkin, 19 
 
 — V. Wright, 243 
 Wroe V. Clayton, 365 
 Wroughton v. Colquhoun, 135, 136 
 Wryghte's Case, 228 
 
 Wy'che, Re, 282, 329 
 Wykham v. Wykham, 67 
 Wyllie V. Ellice, 13, 16 
 Wyllie's Trusts, Re, 213 
 Wynn v. Morgan, 180 
 
 Yarnall v. Rose, 1 8 
 Yates, Re, 313 
 
 — V. Compton, 246 
 
 — V. Fairbrother, 155, 188 
 Yearsley v. Yearsley, 39, 46, 351 
 Yeates, Re, 200 
 
 Yeoman v. Haynes, 129 
 Yockney v. Hansard, 68 
 York V. Brown, 281 
 
 — and North Midland Railway Co. ", 
 Hudson, 42 
 
 Yorkshire, Doncaster, &o. Railway 
 
 Co., Re, 102 
 Y'oung V. English, 393 
 _ V. Everest, 135, 136 
 
 — V. Fernie, 70 
 
 — V. Martin, 116 
 
 — V. Sutton, 175 
 
ADDENDA ET COEEIGENDA. 
 
 Page Line 
 2 5. Forster v. Davies is now reported, 32 Beav. 3G4. 
 12 12. For ' 1835 ' read ' 835. ' 
 
 IS 28. Add a reference to Troup v. Ricardo, 13 W. R. 147. 
 19 24. Add a reference to Lee v. Hamerton, 12 W. R. 975, where a demurrer 
 by a witness was overruled with costs, though the Court held it to he 
 justifiable. 
 21 12. Nesbitt v. Berridge is now reported, 32 Beav. 382. 
 
 26 28. Parker v. Nickson is now reported, 4 G>ff. 3U. 
 
 27 15. 'A. V. B.' is also reported s^ub nom. ' B. t. W.,' 31 Beav. 342. 
 
 28 1. Add a reference to iJaWey V. IT'orAam, 32 Seaw. 69. 
 30 7. Add a reference to Hughes t. Spittal, 13 W. R. 251. 
 
 32 33. Add a reference to Markwick y. Pawson, 4 N. R. 528, where it was 
 
 doubted whether the costs of a motion ordered to stand over were 
 costs in the cause on plaintiff dismissing his own bill. 
 
 33 21. For ' generally pays ' read ' formerly paid.' 
 
 35 14. Topha?nv. Duke of Portland is now reported on this point, 1 De G. 
 
 J. §• S. 603. 
 
 36 17. Add a reference to Re Devonshire, 32 Beav. 241, where an application 
 
 by respondent for leave to file a copy of a petition, of which the peti- 
 tioner refused to file the original, was allowed with costs. 
 
 39 18. Add, 'But see CamiUe v. Donate, 13 W. R. 358, where a defendant, 
 having succeeded in dissolving an interim injunction, on the grounds 
 of want of parties, was not allowed the costs of affidavits to the merits 
 not read.' 
 
 42 17. Add a reference to Markwick v. Pawson, 4 N. R. 528. 
 
 44 23. In re Third Burnt Tree Building Society is also reported 16 Sim. 296. 
 
 „ 36. Eden v. Thompson is now reported, 2 H. ^ M. 6. 
 
 48 30. Add a reference to Markwick v. Pawson, 4 N. R. 523, where it was held 
 that a plaintiff might dismiss his own bill, notwithstanding the pen- 
 dency of a motion ordered to stand over. 
 
 58 n. Add a reference to Walters v. Pynam, 19 Ves. 391. 
 
 62 32. Add ' Semble, if a plaintiff alters his bill after counsel has signed it, an 
 order should be made to take it off the file with costs against the 
 plaintiff {Troup v. Ricardo, 13 W. R 147).' 
 
 66 19. Add ' If an injunction bill is dismissed without costs, the defendant can- 
 not recover damages under an undertaking by the plaintiff on obtain- 
 ing an interlocutory injunction {Bingley v. Marshall, 9 X. T. n. :>. 
 144).' 
 
 68 4. Add a reference to Di Sora v. Phillips, 10 Ho. Lds. Ca. 625. 
 
 69 n. For ' sec. vii.' read 'sec. vi." 
 
 70 2. Add a reference to Forbes v. Peacock, 12 Sim. 549. 
 
 72 16. Add a reference to Stephens v. Brett, 10 L. T. n. s. 231. 
 
 73 15. Add a reference to Straher y. Ewing, 13 W. R. 286, 11 Z.. T. n. s. 588. 
 75 25. Add a reference to Pawleyy. Turnbull, 3 Giff. 70. 
 
 35. Add references to Wynne y. Callander, 1 Russ. 207; B.y. If., 32 Beav. 
 574. 
 
 c 2 
 
lit ' ADDENDA ET COKEIGENDA. 
 
 Page Line 
 77 22. Wells v. Malbon is also reported, 31 Beav. 48. 
 
 81 35. Add references to Benbow v. Davies, 11 Beav. 369 ; Furber v. Furher, 
 30 Beav. 513. 
 
 85 8. Add ' And as to the costs of appearance entered by the plaintiffs for a 
 
 defendant, see 40 Cons. Old. r. 15.' 
 
 86 2. Add a reference to Pierce v. Hammond, 10 L. T. n. s. 261. 
 
 89 30. Add ' An order for payment of costs out of a particular fund is without 
 prejudice to the question how they should ultimately be borne, though 
 not so expressed in the order (^Shephard y. Shephard, 33 Beav. 130).' 
 
 92 25. For ' sec. ix.' read ' sec. viii.' 
 
 94 27. Add ' On motion for decree, however, the defendant will be entitled to 
 
 costs, without an affidavit of having been served (Marter v. Marter, 
 \2W.Il. 34).' 
 
 95 19. Greville v. Greville is also reported, 27 Beav. 598. 
 
 „ 30. Add a reference to Re Mitchell, 12 T^. R. 39, 33 L. J. Ch. 187. 
 
 96 11. For 'ch. V.' read 'ch. vi.' 
 
 „ 13. Add 'And as to the disallowance of cost of unnecessary matter in 
 chambers, see 40 Cons. Ord. r. 10.' 
 
 100 7. Earl of Bective v. Hodgson is now reported, 10 Ho. Lds. Ca., 656. 
 
 101 15. Add a reference to Baring v. Harris {cor. Westb0ry, C), 5 iV. E. 17, 
 
 13 W.R. 210, 10 Jur. n. n. 1190. 
 104 9. See, too, 33 Z. J. Ch. 245. 
 106 21. Add a reference to Power v. Reeves, 10 Ho. Lds. Ca. 645. 
 
 108 4. Kemp v. Burn is now reported, 4 Giff. 348. 
 
 109 29. Add 'And as to cases where costs should be given out of an estate 
 
 generally, see Di Sora v. Phillips, 10 Ho. Lds. Ca. 625.' 
 
 1 10 34. Add a reference to Oddie v. Brown, 4 De G. Sf J. 158. 
 113 4. Add a reference to Hills v. Rattey, IJ.^H. 634. 
 115 26. Webb v. De Beauvoisin is now reported, 31 Beav. 573. 
 
 118 18. Add 'If part of the real estate is undisposed of and descends to the 
 heir, the costs will be divided between the devised and descended 
 estates pro rata {Maddison v. Pye, 32 Beav. 658 ; and see Bagot v. 
 Legge, 13 W. R. 1, 5 N. R. 5, 11 L. T. n. s. 263).' 
 
 121 30. Add a reference to Wroe v. Seed, 4 Giff. 425. 
 
 129 37. Add a reference to Vernon v. Thellusson, 1 Ph. 466. 
 
 131 35. Add a reference to Hoshins v. Campbell, 2 H.^ M. 43. 
 
 133 26. Add a reference to Brooksbank v. fligginbotham, 31 Beav. 35. 
 
 „ 27. Tuchley v. Thompson was compromised on appeal, see Set. 294. 
 
 134 10. Add a reference to Ward v. Mackinlay, 5 N. R. 28 ; but see contra, 
 
 Dighton v. Withers, 31 Beav. 423 
 
 135 5. See, too, Foxen v. Foxen, 5 N. R. I, where it was held, that where there 
 
 is no residue, and a specific fund is bequeathed subject to the pay- 
 ment of certain charges, those charges and the residue of the fund 
 must contribute pari passu to the costs of the suit. 
 „ 11. Sanderson Y. Stoddart is now reported, 32 Beav. 155. 
 149 n. Ellice v. Roupell is now reported, 32 Beav. 308. 
 
 151 13. Add ' The directors of a limited company made defendants to a suit to 
 
 restrain the infringement of a patent by the company, may be ordered 
 to pay the costs of the suit personally (Betts v. I>e Vitri, 5 iV. R. 151, 
 11 Z. T. n.s. 533).' 
 
 152 16. Add ' Where, however, a bill for dower is dismissed, on the ground of 
 
 the lapse of time, it will be with costs, though the right is admitted 
 {Marshall Y. Smith, 5 JV. R. 161, 10 Jur.n. s. 1174).' 
 156 2. Sharpies v. Adams is now reported, 32 Beav. 413. 
 „ 31. Add 'And the mortgagee will be entitled to the costs of a foreclosure 
 suit, though he has proved for the full amount of his debt in an 
 administration suit, and been paid (Brooksbank v. Hiqqinbotham, 31 
 Beav. 35).' ** ' 
 
ADDENDA ET COERIGENDA. Hii 
 
 Page Line 
 
 157 30. And see Rilet/ v. Croydon, 5 N. B. 160, 13 W. B. 223, 11 L. T. n. s. 
 
 591, where a bill by the assignee of the tenant for life to redeem a 
 mortgage on the inheritance, the tenant for life having died pendente 
 lite, was dismissed with costs. 
 
 158 14. And see Ward v. Mackinlat/, 5 iV. B. 28 ; but see, contra, Dighton v. 
 
 Withers, 31 Beav. 423. 
 
 161 12. Coiedrt/v. Day is also reported, 1 Giff. 316. 
 
 166 23. Add ' In a suit by a tenant for life to redeem a mortgage on the inherit- 
 ance, the plaintiff pays the costs of the remaindermen made defend- 
 dants, with liberty to add them to his own {Biley t. Croydon, 5 N. B. 
 160).' 
 
 174 7. Davis v. Turvey is now reported, 32 Beav. 554. 
 „ 11. Add ' In Fleming y. Armstrong, 5 iV. A*. 181, a sale was directed for pay- 
 ment of costs, though one of the co-tenants was a married woman, 
 entitled for her separate use, without power of anticipation. And see 
 Hubbard v. Hubbard, 2 H. ^ M. 38; Donaldson v. Fairfax, ibid. 
 40, n.' 
 
 176 37. Add 'And it makes no difference, whether the transaction was a sale 
 or a mortgage (Tottenham v. Emmett, 13 W. B. 124, 11 L. T. n. s. 
 464).' 
 
 188 10. Add a reference to Bede v. Oakes, 5 iV. B. 209, 11 i. T. n. «. 549. 
 
 189 1. For ' chapter vi.' read ' chapter v.' 
 
 191 32. See further as to form of order. Be Hayward's Estate, 9 L. T. n. ». 320. 
 
 192 31. For ' 3 Jur. n. s.' read ' 1 Jur. n. s.' 
 195 34. See Be Watson, 4 N. B. 528. 
 
 197 5. Eden t. Thompson is now reported in 2 H. Sf M. 6. 
 
 „ 37. In Paierson v. Paterson, 3 N. B. 637, 10 X. T. n. s. 183, the company 
 were ordered to pay the costs of the remaindermen not parties to 
 the suit, but served with a copy of the bill. See, too, Brandon v. 
 Brandon, 5 N. B. 2\4; Ex parte Cooper, 5 N. B. 233. 
 
 198 11. See, too, Be Briscoe, iN. B.3U. 
 
 „ 36. See, however, Be Long's Estate, 12 W. B. 460, and Be Prebend of 
 St Margaret, Leicester, 10 i. T. n. s. 221. In the latter case, a 
 respondent, who had refused to join in the petition, was ordered to pay 
 his own costs. 
 
 199 23. See, too. Re Furness Bailway Company, 3 N. B. 287. 
 
 200 24. On an application by the tenant for life to have the money in Court 
 
 paid out to the mortgagee, the costs of the mortgagee were not given 
 against the company (Be Hatfield's Estate, No. 2, 32 Beav. 253) ; 
 qucere as to distinction there taken between the practice on a petition 
 to pay money out and to invest. 
 „ 34. In Be Thomas, 12 W. B. 546, where the land purchased was subject to 
 a mortgage, the Court, in ordering the investment of the monies, 
 refused to give more than one set of costs. 
 205 18. Be Maryport Bailway Company is now reported in 32 Beav. 203. 
 
 19. See, however. Ex parte the Vicar of St. Sepulchre's, Be Westminster 
 Bridge Act, 1859, 12 W. B. 499. 
 
 207 34\Brandon v. Brandon is now reported sub nom. Be Brandon m 2 Drew 
 
 208 13/ A- Sm. 162. ^ ^ ^ ., 
 
 6. See, too. Be Apperley's Estate, Be Hereford, Hay S; Brecon Bailway 
 Company, U L. T. n. s. 335, 13 W. B. 134. 
 „ 27. It seems that an order for payment of costs by a company, under the 
 80th sect, of the Act, cannot be varied in their favour, unless they 
 appeal {Re Gregson's Trusts, 13 W. R. 193, 10 Jur. n. s. 1138). 
 211 8. See, too. Be Wimbledon §• Dorking Bailway Act, 9 L. T. n. s. 703, and 
 Ex parte Birmingham, Wolverhampton Sf Dudley Bailway Company, 1 
 H ^M. 772. 
 215 1. Re Swan's Settlement is now reported in 2 H. ^ M. 35. 
 
liv ADDENDA ET COKRIGENDA. 
 
 Page Line 
 
 215 16. Mere bona fides is not a sufficient excuse for a trustee unnecessarily 
 
 paying money into court. There must be a reasonable doubt as to 
 
 the title (i?e Elgar, U L. T. u. s. 415). 
 221 25. Be Rowley's Legacy is now reported in 1 De G. J. Sr S. 417. 
 
 226 29. See, further, as to costs of official manager, Jones v. Jones, 4 iV. iJ. 524. 
 
 227 24. Se Era Insurance Company is now reported, on appeal, in 1 De G. J. 
 
 §-&173. 
 
 228 18. See further, as to costs being payable by contributories, ReBirhbeck 
 
 Life Assurance Company, 5 N. R. 299, 11 Jur. n. s. 76. 
 
 229 17. Re Commercial Discount Company ( Limited J.is now reported in 32 Beav. 
 
 198. 
 „ 21 See, further, as to costs of petition for winding-up. Re Factage Parisien 
 Company (Limited), 11 L. T. n. s. 556, 13 W. R. 214, 330. In Re 
 General international Agency Company (Limited), 5,JV. R. 265, the 
 costs of the provisional liquidator's appearance were disallowed. 
 
 230 13. Where an order, made under the Leases and Sales Act, 1856, directing 
 
 a mining lease to be settled by the judge, was amended pursuant to 
 the 27 §• 28 Vic. c. 45, s. 2, the costs of the application were ordered 
 to be paid out of the one fourth of the rents set aside by the trustees 
 as representing the inheritance {Lovat v. Duke of Leeds, II L. T. n. «. 
 442 ; see, too, Re Hurle's Settled Estates, 13 W. R. 171). 
 „ 26. As to costs on applications, under the order of February 1st, 1861, as 
 to investments in Bank Stock, &c., see Equitable Reversionary Interest 
 Society v. Fuller, i J. ^ H. 379 ; Re Longford's Trusts, 2 J. Sf H. 
 458. 
 
 257 9. Add ' In a partition suit, however, the Court charged the costs of a 
 married woman upon her share, though it was settled to her separate 
 use, without power of anticipation (Fleming v. Armstrong, 5 N. R. 
 151, 11 L. T. n. s. 470 ; and see Hubbard v Hubbard, 2H.SfM.SS; 
 Donaldson v. Fairfax, ibid. 40, n.).' 
 Lane v. Sterne is also reported, 3 Giff. 629. 
 
 See Yetts v. Hilton, 9 L. T. n. s. 505, where a solicitor, disclaiming to 
 hold as purchaser, and claiming only as mortgagee, was allowed costs 
 from the date of the answer. 
 Add a reference to Betts v. De Vitrl, 11 L. T. n. s. 533. 
 9. But see Graham v. Wickham, 5 N. R. 292, overruling s. u. 5 N. R. 158, 
 11 L.T. n. s. 438. 
 
 301 25. Add references to Re Foligno's Mortgage, 32 Beav. 131, and Re Swan, 
 2 H.^ M. 34. 
 
 306 2. A suit to foreclose the equity of redemption in property mortgaged to 
 secure costs is not a suit ' for the recovery of fees' within the meaning 
 of the S7th sect, of the Attornies and Solicitors' Act ; and a solicitor is 
 not thereby debarred from commencing such suit, though he has not 
 delivered his bill of costs; nor will the proceedings be stayed till the 
 requisites of the Act be complied with, in a case where there are 
 subsequent incumbrancers {Thomas v. Cross, 5 N. R. 148, 13 W. R. 
 166, 10 Jur. n. s. 1163 ; and see, too, Waughy. Waddell 16 Beav. 
 521, there cited). 
 
 308 5. See, too. Re Chambers, 5 iV. R. 298. 
 
 313 20. For ' interest on the annual rents ' read ' interest with annual rests.' 
 
 317 32. See, too, Davenport v. Davenport, 14 Sim. 275. 
 „ 35. See, too, Re May, 5 iV. R. 297, 11 L. T. n. s. 658. 
 
 330 29. An application under the Attornies and Solicitors Act, which, though in 
 form, is an application to tax a. bill of costs, is in substance an appli- 
 cation to reform a mortgage, cannot be entertained. For this pur- 
 pose the remedy, if any, is by bill (Re Forsyth, 13 W. R 307) 
 
 350 30. See further, as to costs of affidavits, CamUlev. Donate, 13 W. R. 358. 
 
 352 11. Forster -v. Davies is DoyvrepoTlid in 32 Beav. 624, 
 
 278 
 
 6. 
 
 ») 
 
 33. 
 
 288 
 
 35. 
 
 294 
 
 9. 
 
ADDENDA ET COKEIGENDA. Iv 
 
 Pago Line 
 
 357 30. See, further, as to costs of journies by solicitors, Re Price, 9 Beav. 234 ; 
 
 lie Bevan, 20 Beav. 146 ; Alsop y. Lord Oxford, 1 Mi/. Sf K. 664; 
 
 Horlock V. Smith, 2 My. ^ Cr. 523 ; Crossky v. Packer, 1 J. ^ W. 
 
 460. 
 373 33. For ' c. 68 ' read ' c. 58.' 
 
 387 33. ' When the House is not sitting, the Court will make the order of 
 
 the House of Lords an order of the Court of Chancery, on motion 
 ex parte {Wentioorth v. Lhi/d, 5 N. R. 65, 13 W. R. 146). 
 
 388 15. Add ' The existence of an order of coui-se for taxation is no bar to an 
 
 action on any security for the costs, as a promissory note (Jeffreys 
 V. Evans, 14 M. §• W. 210); or to a suit to foreclose a mortgage for 
 them {Thomas v. Cross, 5 N. R. 148, 10 Jur. n. s. 1163 ; but see 
 Waugh v. VyaddeU, 16 Beav. 521.' 
 
 389 20. It has been held that a judgment debtor summons will not lie for costs 
 
 alone {Re Curling, 9 X. T. n. s. 659). 
 
 397 30. Add a reference to Slater v. Mayor of Sunderland, 33 X. J. Q. B. 37, 
 
 11 Jur. u. s, 57. 
 
 398 4. See Baileys. BerchaU, 5 N. R. 237. 
 
 400 34. Wilson v. Round is now reported, 4 Giff. 416; and see Sleaman v. 
 Sleaman, 10 Jur. n. s. 592. In Bailey v. BerchaU, ubi supra, a solicitor 
 was allowed a charge, although the executors had a right of. set-off 
 against the client. 
 
COSTS IN CHANCERY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE VARIOUS KINDS OF COSTS. 
 
 Theee are three modes in which costs awarded by an Three 
 order of the Court of Chancery in any suit or matter are taxation. 
 taxed : first, as between party and party ; secondly, as 
 between solicitor and client ; thirdly, with the addition of 
 other charges and expenses properly incurred. 
 
 "WTien costs are directed to be taxed simply, without First, as 
 any further direction, this always means as between party party and 
 and party ; even although the party to whom the costs are V^^J- 
 awarded would, according to the ordinary practice of the 
 Court, be entitled to his costs as between solicitor and 
 client, or his costs, charges, and expenses. ' If, therefore, 
 the costs are intended to be taxed as between solicitor and 
 client, or any costs, charges, and expenses, not strictly 
 costs of suit, are to be allowed, or the taxation is in any 
 respect to vary from taxation as between party and party, 
 this should be expressed in the decree or order' (Seton 
 on Decrees, p. 93). As to what costs will be allowed on 
 taxation as between party and party, see 40 Cons. Ord. 
 r. 32, and post, ch. vii. 
 
 Costs as between solicitor and client, payable by one Secondly, 
 party to another, will not include all costs to which the solicitor 
 solicitor would be entitled as against his client. It is im- and client, 
 possible to lay down with exactness any rule upon the 
 subject, but generally it would seem that all such costs 
 would be allowed as a solicitor would ordinarily incur in 
 ^^ B 
 
2 VARIOUS KINDS OF COSTS. 
 
 the conduct of his client's business, excluding those ex- 
 traordinary costs which may have been occasioned either 
 by the default of the client, as by his incurring a con- 
 tempt, or by his express instructions, as to employ an un- 
 usual number of counsel. See Foster v. Davies, 11 W. 
 jB. 813. A distinction is made by the taxing-master 
 without special direction in the decree or order, first, 
 where costs are to be paid by another party personally, or 
 out of a fund belonging wholly to other parties ; secondly, 
 where they are to be paid out of a fund in which the party 
 receiving costs has a common interest with other parties ; 
 thirdly, where the fund out of which they are to be paid 
 belongs wholly to the party himself {Seton on Decrees, 
 p. 93 ; 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 1081). When costs are given 
 out of a fund, they are ordered to be paid to the solicitors 
 of the parties, otherwise to the parties themselves. 
 
 The particular suits in which, and the particular persons 
 to whom, costs as between solicitor and client are ordinarily 
 awarded, will be discussed in future chapters. Costs as 
 between solicitor and client are also occasionally awarded 
 by the Court in cases of scandal and other misconduct, by 
 way of marking its disapproval ; see post, p. 28. 
 Thirdly, Trustees, executors, and administrators are usually 
 
 charges allowed their costs of suit as between solicitor and client 
 and out of the trust funds or the general estate ; and in 
 
 addition to costs of suit, any other costs, charges, and 
 expenses properly incurred by them in the execution of 
 the trust, or the administration of the estate. But they 
 will not be entitled to them without express mention 
 {Humphry v. Moore, 2 Atk. 108) ; and it seems that it must 
 be stated to the Court that such additional costs, charges, 
 and expenses have actually been Incurred (1 Smith's ' 
 Ch. Pr. 1074, and "hradshaw v. Bradshaw, cor. V. C. 
 Kindersley, there referred to in note 4). According to 
 Amard v. Broadbourne, 2 Ch. Ca. 138, and Fearns v. Young, 
 10 Ves. 184, all such costs, charges, and expenses would 
 also be allowed under 'just allowances.' 
 
 y 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 SECURITY FOR COSTS. 
 
 Whex the sole plaintiff is resident, or (if there are more By -whom 
 than one) all the plaintiffs are resident out of the jurisdic- ^^g® 
 tion, any defendant to the biU may, before he takes any i- When 
 proceedings in the suit, require the plaintiff or plaintiffs tiff is out 
 to give security for costs. No order will be made on a ?^ ^J^f. 
 
 . . . . . . jurisdic- 
 
 plamtiff residing abroad to give security for costs if there tion. 
 are co-plaintiffs residing in England {Winthorp v. Royal 
 Exchange Assurance Company, Dick. 282 ; Walker v. 
 Easterby, 6 Ves. 612); but quare where all the plaintiffs 
 are out of the jurisdiction, but one of them sues by a next 
 friend in this country (Lander v. Parr, 16 L. J. ch. 269, 
 and see Smith x. Etches, I H. 8f M. 558). The defendant 
 is equally entitled to security, whether the plaintiff is 
 described in the bill as resident out of the jurisdiction, or 
 has gone abroad at any time after the filing of the bill 
 {Lonergan v. Rokehy, Dick. 79 ; E'eeks v. Cole, 14 Ves. 518), 
 or was in fact resident abroad at the time when the bill 
 was filed, though not so described. . But the plaintiff must 
 be resident abroad, and not merely gone there for a 
 temporary purpose without abandoning his residence in 
 this country {Green v. Charnock, 1 Ves. junr. 396, s. c. 2 
 Cox, 284 ; Holy v. Hitchcock, 5 Ves. 699 ; Blakeney v. 
 Dufaur, 2 De G. M. Sf G. 271; Edwardes \. Burke, 
 9 L. T. n. s. 406). In Oi" Conner v. Sierra Nevada 
 Company, 23 Beav. 608, however, security appears to 
 have been required from a plaintiff who had gone 
 abroad, after bill filed, merely on matters connected with 
 the suit. It is diflScult to reconcile this case with the 
 earlier decisions: see particularly White v. Gr cathead, 15 
 
 B 2 
 
4 SECURITY FOR COSTS. 
 
 Fes. 2; Green y Ckarnock, loc. cit In Blakenet/ y. Dufavr, 
 loc. cit, the plaintiff was in embarrassed circumstances, 
 and had gone to Jersey to avoid his creditors, and the 
 Court held that he was ' resident abroad ' and must give 
 security. In the same way security was required from a 
 plaintiff who had given up his house in England since the 
 filing of the bill, and had gone to reside abroad, as he 
 stated, for a temporary abode, but who left it uncertain 
 whether and when he intended to return {Kennaway v. 
 Tripp, 11 Beav. 588 ; and see Stewart y. Stewart, 20 Beav. 
 322). The plaintiff will not be required to give security, 
 if he is abroad in some official capacity on the public 
 service, as in Colebrook v. Jones, Dick. 154, where the 
 plaintiff was a consul abroad ; Evelyn v. Chippendale, 9 
 Sim. 497, where the plaintiff was a half-pay ofiScer, who 
 had resided sixteen years in Barbadoes, where he held the 
 offices of harbour master and captain of the port ; and see 
 Fisher v. Banbury, Sau. §• Sc. 625. But it must dis- 
 tinctly appear that the plaintiff is abroad on the public 
 service. In Lillie v. Lillie, 4 My. §• K. 404, the plaintiff 
 was described in the bill as ' a lieutenant in her Majesty's 
 58th regiment, resident at Ceylon, in the East Indies ; ' 
 and it was held that he must give security, though it 
 appeared that the regiment was in Ceylon. In Clark v. 
 Fergusson, \ Giff. 184, the plaintiff was described as 'a 
 lieutenant in her Majesty's ship Gladiator, now on service,' 
 and he was exempted from giving security. There seems 
 to be no exemption in favour of a seafaring man ( Steioart 
 V. Stewart, 20 Beav. 322), though the contrary was held 
 in Gowram v. Barnett, Sau. Sf Sc. 651. A peer, 
 if resident abroad, must give security (Lord Aldborough 
 V. Burton, 2 My. Sf K. 401), even though he possesses 
 large estates in this country {Lord Lucan v. Latouche, 1 
 Hog. 448). Security will not be required merely because 
 the plaintiff intends to go abroad. In Baddeley v. Harding, 
 6 Mad. 214, where the plaintiff had been con^'icted of a 
 misdemeanour, and sentenced to be transported for seven 
 
SECURITY FOR COSTS. 5 
 
 years, but was then in pi-ison in tliis country, a motion 
 that he should gire security was refused ; and see Seilaz 
 T. Hanson, 5 Vcs. 261. Again, a foreigner temporarily 
 resident here will not be required to give security, though 
 it is not denied that he intends to return to his own 
 country {Cambottie v. Inngate, 1 IV. R. 533; and see 
 Anon. 5 L. J. ch. 71); but secus if he cannot be found 
 at the address in this country given by him {Perrot v. 
 Noi-elli, 9 Jur. 770, aiiAsee Ainsliey. Sims, 17 Beav. 57). 
 Executors and administrators, if out of the jurisdiction, 
 must give security (^Knight v. de Blaquiere, Sau. Sf Sc. 
 648) ; and even where, on the death of a plaintiff from 
 whom security might have been, but was not, required, 
 they obtain a common order for revivor (^Jackson v. Daven- 
 port, 29 Beav. 212). In Desprez v. Mitchell, 5 Mad. 87, a 
 defendant obtained, on motion in this Court, security for 
 the costs of an action at law, which at the hearing the 
 plaintiff, who was out of the jurisdiction, had obtained 
 liberty to bring : but see Hilton \. Lord Granville, 5 
 Beav. 263. When the plaintiff comes within the juris- 
 diction, the order will be discharged ( Ma^Aews v. Chichester, 
 30 Beav. 135; O' Conner v. Sierra Nevada Company, 24 
 Beav. 435). 
 
 An ambassador's servant, being a person privileged ii. An am- 
 under 7 Anne c. 12, must give security for costs {Goodwin ger^ant",'^ 
 v. Archer, 2 P. W. 452 ; Adderley v. Smith, 1 Dick. '655 ; bit not 
 Anon. Mos. 175); but semble not an ambassador himself sador. 
 {Duke de Montellano v. Christin, 5 M. 8f S. 503). 
 
 In Saridys v. Long, 2 My. §• K. 487, the plaintiff de- iu. when 
 scribed himself as resident at Cheltenham, but on affidavit *^ P'?'°' 
 that he did not reside there, and had not resided there for describes 
 some months before the filing of the bill, he was ordered ^encefor 
 to give security on account of the misdescription. This is peeping 
 case, however, was commented on by Lord Cottenham C. ^ay. 
 in Hurst v. Padwick, 12 Jur. 21 ; and it is now settled, 
 that the mere fact of the plaintiff not describing, or in- 
 sufficiently describing, his residence in the bill, is not 
 
6 SECUEITY FOR COSTS. 
 
 sufficient, but there must be a fraudulent intention to 
 keep out of the way {Hurst v. Padwick, loc. cit. ; 
 Lumley v. Hughes, 2 W. R. 112 ; Simpson v. Burton, 1 
 Beav. 556 ; Griffiths v. Ricketts, 1 i/a. 195 ; Knight v. 
 Cory, 1 iV; i?. 229). If the plaintiff cannot be found at 
 the place of which he is described in the bill, and no in- 
 formation can be obtained from his solicitors, he must give 
 security : see Bailey v. Gundry, 2 Keen, 53 ; Manby v. 
 Bewicke, 8 De G. M. 8f G. 468, s. c, 1 Jur. n. s. 1015 
 (where the marginal note is incorrect), overruling s. c. 
 3 fF. R. 646. In the latter case, the decision of V. C. 
 Wood below went on the grounds, that the plaintiff had 
 paid the costs of a demurrer allowed, which fact out- 
 weighed the evidence as to his not being found ; but this 
 circumstance does not seem to have been adverted to by 
 the Lords Justices. In Oldale v. Whicher, 5 Jur. N. S. 
 84, s. c. sub nom. Oldale v. Whitehead, 7 W. R. 157, the 
 plaintiff's affidavit, in answer to evidence, that inquiry had 
 been made for him, but he could not be found at the place 
 of which he was described, stated that ' he occupied and 
 rented apartments there, and his wife and family resided 
 there,' and he was ordered to give security. In Sandys 
 V. Whately, 2 Jur. 1058, it was held that the plaintiff was 
 sufficiently described as rector of a certain parish, although 
 it appeared that he was travelling about the country. In 
 Knight v. Cory, loc. cit., V. C. "Wood held, that where the 
 plaintiff could not be found at the place of which he was 
 described, the defendant ought to communicate with the 
 plaintiff's solicitors ; and he made the defendant pay the 
 costs of the motion, because he had omitted to do so. It 
 seems, however, to have been otherwise held in Ireland 
 {Shaw V. Dempsey, Sau. §• Sc. 628). In Smith v. 
 Cornfoot, 1 De G. Sf S. 684, the misdescription 
 having been innocently inserted, and the defendants 
 admitting that they knew the plaintiff's real address, the 
 Court refused the motion, but gave the defendant his 
 costs on his not putting the plaintiff to amend his bill. As 
 
SECURITY FOR COSTS. 7 
 
 to an insufficient description, see Sihbering v. Earl of 
 Balcarrcs, 1 De G. <.V 5". 683, Avhere the motion was 
 ordered to stand over for the plaintiff to amend the de- 
 scription of himself. In Player v. Anderson, 15 Sim. 104, 
 tlae plaintiff, whose residence was correctly described when 
 the bill was filed, was ordered to give security because he 
 had since frequently changed his abode : sed qu. : see 
 Calvert v. Day, 2 To. &,• Coll. 217 ; Fraser v. Palmer, 
 3 Jo. §• Coll. 279. Where the plaintiff changes his re- 
 sidence between the filing of the original bill and the 
 same being amended, the change should be stated in the 
 amended bill {Kerr v. Gillespie, 7 Beav. 269); and the 
 address of the plaintiff, though stated in the original bill, 
 must be also stated in a supplemental bill filed to bring 
 fresh parties (as the assignees of a bankrupt, an original 
 defendant) before the Court ; otherwise security must be 
 given (^Campbell v. Andrews, 12 Sim. 578). Security will 
 not be required on account of an error in the plaintiff's 
 designation; see fFatts v. Kelly, 6 W. R. 206, where the 
 plaintiff, being a letter-carrier, was described as a ' clerk.' 
 
 It has been said that the plaintiff''s misdescription of Misde- 
 himself in his bill may be the subject of a plea (Smith v. a^piafnti/ 
 Smith, Kay, app. xxii. ; Rowley v. Eccles, \ S. (^ S. 511) ; ^a.jhe the 
 but that was doubted by Sir J. Romilly, M. E., in ™pi'ea. ° 
 Bainbrigge v. Orton, 20 Beav. 28. At any rate the 
 averments of the plea must be very distinct {Smith v. 
 Smith, lac. cit.) ; and a clerical error cannot be taken 
 advantage of by such a plea {Cust v. Southee, 19 L. J. 
 ch. 526). 
 
 Formerly no distinction appears to have been made iv. By the 
 between the next friend of a married woman and that of ^^^^^^ ^ ^ 
 an infant {Squirrel v. Squirrel, 2 P. W., 297 (n.) s. c. married 
 2 Dick. 765). Although it is stated {Mitf. 26 (n.) Stra. but°no°tof 
 708, and Anon. 1 Atk. 570) that the prochein amy ^°^°^^^'^j 
 (whether of a married woman or infant) must be a respon- of poTeity. 
 sible person or person of substance, yet in Squirrel v. 
 Squirrel, lac. cit. the Court appears to have refused to 
 
8 SECURITY FOK COSTS. 
 
 make the next friend give security for costs on account of 
 his poverty ; and see Anon. 1 Ves. jun. 409, but see 
 contra, Wale v. Salter, Mos. 47 ; Anon. Mos. 86. A distinc- 
 tion between the next friend of a married woman, and of 
 an infant appears to have been first drawn in Pennington 
 V. Alvin {cor. Sir J. Leach, V.C.) I S. &^ S. 265 ; and it 
 is now settled, 1st, that any person may file a bill in the 
 name of an infant, and that security for costs will not be 
 required from an infant's next friend (either original or 
 substituted), on account of his poverty {Davenport v. 
 Davenport, 1 ^S". §• <S'. 101 ; Pennington v. Alvin. loc. cit.; 
 Fellows V. Barrett, 1 Keen, 119; Murrell v. Clapham, 8 
 Sim. 74) ; and, 2ndly, that, notwithstanding Dowden v. 
 Hook, 8 Beav. 399 (which may be considered as over- 
 ruled), the next friend of a married woman must be a 
 person of substance, and the Court will, on the defendant's 
 application, and evidence of the next friend's poverty, 
 order the next friend to be changed, or security for costs 
 to be given {Pennington v. Alvin, loc. cit. ; Drinan v. 
 Mannix, 3 Dr. §• W. 154 ; Stevens v. Williams, 1 Sim. 
 n. s. 54:5 ; Wilton v. Hill, 2 De G. M. §• G. 807 ; Hind v. 
 Whitmore, 2 K.i; J. 458 ; Elliot v. Ince, 7 De G. M. ^- G. 
 475). If a married woman and infants sue by the same 
 next friend, security may be obtained {Pennington v. 
 Alvin, loc. cit. ; Drinan v. Mannix, loc. cit.). And the 
 circumstance that there are other plaintiffs on the record 
 will not in every case prevent the next friend of a married 
 woman having to give security ; see Smith v. Etches, 1 H. 
 §• M. 558, where a husband, who had become bankrupt, 
 and his wife, by her next friend, being co-plaintiffs in a 
 suit for the redemption of the wife's estate, V.C. Wood 
 made the wife's next friend give security for costs. 
 And in Balguy v. Broadhurst, 2 W. R., 680, a female 
 adult co-plaintiff, on being appointed next friend for 
 her mother, and brothers and sisters, had to give secu- 
 rity. In Jones v. Fawcett, 2 Ph. 278, overruling s. c. 
 11 Jur. 687, the Court even refused, on the application of 
 
SKCXJEITY rOR COSTS. 9 
 
 a plaintiff, a married woman, to remove her next friend 
 
 and appoint another, where it was evident that the 
 
 defendant's security for costs would be thereby prejudiced. 
 
 If the next friend, whether of an infant or married woman, Wliere a 
 
 is changed in the course of the suit, he must give security i'J'changed 
 
 for the costs already incurred, and proceedings will be i° "^^ 
 
 COUI'SP of 
 
 stayed in the mean time {fFitts v. Campbell, 12 Ves. 492 ; the suit. 
 Davenport v. Davenport, loc. cit. ; and Payne v. Little, 14 
 Beav. 647) ; and, semble, the proper security is a bond of 
 the former next friend, and a responsible surety in a 
 sufficient amount (Payne v. Little, 16 Beav. 563). A 
 next friend is of course in other respects in the same 
 position as an ordinary plaintiff, and must give security 
 for costs, if resident out of the jurisdiction (Alcock v. 
 Alcock, 5 De G. Sf S. 671), or if insufficiently described 
 in the bill {Major v. Arnott, 2 Jur. n. s. 80, 4 W. R. 
 229). But it is immaterial that an infant plaintiff is 
 resident out of the jurisdiction, if the next friend is 
 amenable {Kerr v. Gillespie, 7 Beav. 269) ; and, semble, 
 also in the case of a married woman, plaintiff {Lander v. 
 Parr, 16 L. J. ch. 269). A married woman may, by 
 special leave, sue in forma pauperis "without a next friend 
 {Hind V. Whitmore, loc. cit., and cases there cited), 
 and such leave may be obtained ex parte { Wellesley v. 
 Mornington, 2 W. R. 514; In re Lancaster 2 W. R. 
 337, IS Jur. 222; overruling Page v. Page 1 W. R. 
 262). 
 
 The general rule is perfectly clear that the Court will not v. By 
 require security for costs from any plaintiff merely on ac- account of 
 count of his poverty ; but in Burke v. Lidwell, 1 Jo. §• Lat. poverty. 
 703, s. c. sub nom. Burke v. Hutchinson, 7 Ir. Eq. Pep. 708, 
 where the plaintiff was a pauper, to whom an old judg- 
 ment had been assigned in trust for a sohcitor, the bene- 
 ficial owner, for the purpose of instituting the suit to 
 enforce it, Sir E. Sugden, L.C. ordered the plaintiff to 
 give security for costs. This case, however, which the 
 Court considered one of gross fraud, dspended on the 
 
10 
 
 SECURITY FOR COSTS. 
 
 vi. By a 
 poor 
 
 relator in 
 a charity 
 informa- 
 tion. 
 
 ■vii. When 
 a limited 
 Company 
 is plaintiff. 
 
 special circumstances, and would not probably be generally 
 followed. See the comments on it by Sir E. Sugden 
 himself, in Worrall v. White, 3 Jo. §• Lat. 513. There is 
 also a case in the Exchequer ( Tredwell v. Byrch, 1 Yo. ^ 
 Col. 476), in which a plaintiff, who filed a bill on behalf of 
 himself and all other the rated inhabitants of a parish 
 against certain commissioners, alleging a case of breach of 
 trust, was ordered to find security for costs, on account 
 of his insolvency ; sed qu. 
 
 A relator in a charity information, however, may be re- 
 quired to give security for costs on the ground of his poverty 
 (^Attorney- General v. Skinners' Company, 1 C. P. C, 
 1, 5 ; Attorney- General v. Mayor of Rochester, Reg. lib. 
 A.fol. 271, cited in Shelf ord on Mortmain, 425); but 
 semble not, where in an information and bill the relator is 
 also the plaintiff {Attorney- General v. Knight, 3 My. §• 
 Cr. 154). In the last case the defendants appear to have 
 proceeded by memorial to the Attorney-General, but in 
 the two former cases by motion to the Court. 
 
 By 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89 (The Companies' Act, 1862), 
 s. 69, it is enacted that — 
 
 ' Where a limited company is plaintiff or pursuer in 
 any action, suit, or other legal proceeding, any judge 
 having jurisdiction in the matter may, if it appears by 
 any credible testimony that there is reason to believe 
 that, if the defendant should be successful in his defence, 
 the assets of the Company will be insufficient to pay his 
 costs, require suflcicient security to be given for such costs, 
 and may stay all proceedings until such security is given.' 
 
 The corresponding section of the repealed act (20 & 21 
 Vict. c. 14, s. 24) contained the words ' if it be proved to 
 his satisfaction,' instead of the words ' if it appears by any 
 credible testimony that there is reason to believe ' ; and in 
 Caillaud's Patent Tanning Company {Limited) v. Caillaud, 
 26 Beav. 4:21, Sir J. Romilly, M. E. is reported to have 
 refused, on the defendant's affidavit that the Company 
 had ceased operations, the stock and plant were sold, and 
 
SECUKITT FOR COSTS. 11 
 
 proceedings had been taken to wind up the Company, 
 and that it was ' insolvent and unable to pay its debts 
 already incurred,' to make the order. See, however, The 
 Official Liquidators of the Southampton, ^c. Company 
 {Limited) v. Raiolings, 2 N. R. 544, where the same 
 judge doubted the correctness of the report of the former 
 case. As to what is ' sufficient security,' see below, pp. 14, 
 15. In Anglo-Danubian, Sfc. Company (lAmited) v. Roger- 
 son, 3 N. R. 18o, it was held tliat an ex parte injunction 
 would not be granted on the application of a limited com- 
 pany, ivithout an undertaking as to damages from some 
 responsible person. 
 
 It is, strictly speaking, irregular for plaintiffs to amend viii. Where 
 by striking out the names of any of their co-plaintiffs ^^^ndt 
 '{Sloggett v. Collins, 13 Sim. 436), but leave will be striking 
 granted on special application, on the terms of security of 0^°"*^ 
 being given for the costs of the suit {Att. Gen. v. Cooper, plaintiffs. 
 3 3Ig. §• Cr. 258 ; Lloyd v. Makeam, 6 Ves. 145 ; Motteux 
 V. Mackreth, 1 Ves. Junr. 142 ; Fellowes v. Deere, 3 Beav. 
 353); and see Drake v. Symes, 7 Jza: N. S. 399, and 
 Davey v. Bennett 3 W. R. 353. 
 
 In Knox v. Brown, 1 Cox 359, on motion by the plain- ix. By de- 
 tiff to dismiss his oivn bill without costs, Lord Thurlow ^^"'^^'''^• 
 ordered the defendant, who had absconded, to find security 
 for costs, or in default, that the bill should be dismissed 
 without costs ; but this case does not appear to have been 
 followed: see Beames on Costs, 183. Security for costs 
 may be required from a defendant obtaining the conduct 
 of the cause {Mynn v. Hart, 9 Jur. 860), and from a de- 
 fendant in an interpleader suit, being in the position of a 
 plaintiff, if resident out of the jurisdiction {Smith v. 
 Hammond, 6 Sim. 15). In Annesley v. Simeon, 4 Madd. 
 390, cestuis-que-trustent (defendants) were restrained 
 from bringing an action in the name of their trustee (a 
 co-defendant) till security was given for the costs of the 
 action. 
 
 Security for costs will be required from a petitioner x. By 
 
 petitioners. 
 
12 SECURITY FOR COSTS. 
 
 under the same circumstances as it is required from a 
 plaintiff; see ex parte Foley, 11 Beav. 456; In re Latta, 
 3 De G. ^ S. 186 (where the petition was for winding 
 up) ; ex parte Seidler, 12 Sim. 106 (where the petition was 
 under an Act of Parliament) ; and In, re Pasmore, 1 Beav. 
 94 ; In re Norman, 11 Beav. 401 ; In re Dolman, 11 Jur. 
 1095 (the petition in each of which cases was for taxation 
 of a solicitor's bill of costs). On a petition for taxation, 
 the petitioner, if out of the jurisdiction, must give secu- 
 rity, not only for the costs of taxation, but also for the 
 amount to be found due from him {Anon. 12 Sim. 262 ; 
 Seton, 1835). Where a petition is presented in a cause, 
 security will not be required from the petitioner, if he is 
 party to the suit {Cochrane v. Fear on, 18 Jur. 568), secus 
 if he is not a party to the suit {Driver v. Maudesley, 5' 
 Buss. 11; Partington v. Reynolds, 6 W. R. 307); and 
 a substantive motion for the purpose may be made before 
 the petition comes on to be heard [Atkins v. Cook, 3 Drew, 
 694); and see Glazbrook v. Gillatt, 9 Beav. 492. 
 Plaintiff A plaintiff in a cross suit is not required to give security 
 
 suit ™°^^ ^^^ costs, either because he is resident out of the jurisdic- 
 exempted. tion ( Vincent v. Hunter, 5 Ha. 320), or on the grounds 
 of his residence being insufficiently described {Wild v. 
 Murray, 18 Jur. 892, 2 W. R. 613). This rule will 
 apply, as between the plaintiff in the original suit and the 
 plaintiff in the cross suit, though other matters are com- 
 prised in the cross bill ; but it seems that defendants to 
 the cross suit, not parties to the original suit, may have 
 security {Wild v. Murray, loc. cit. ; Sloggett v. Viant, 13 
 Sim. 187). A plaintiff filing a bill to restrain an action 
 at law is within the rule as to cross suits ( Watteeu v. 
 Billam, 3 De G. 8f S. 516), though the bill also seeks 
 other relief ( Wilkinson v. Lewis, 3 Giff. 394). As to what 
 is a cross suit, see Macgregor v. Shaw, 2 De G. §• S. 
 360, where security was not required; and Tynte v. 
 Hodge, 2 Jb.,§- If. 692, where the bill sought to impeach 
 an annuity deed, on the footing of which a decree had been 
 
SECURITY FOR COSTS. 13 
 
 already made in a former suit, and security was required 
 from the plaintiff, being out of the jurisdiction. 
 
 If the defendant voluntarily takes any step in the suit, "Waiver. 
 as applying for time to answer, after the circumstances 
 which entitle him to security for costs from the plaintiff 
 come to his knowledge, he will, in general, be held to have 
 waived his right to such security {Craig v. Bolton, 3 
 Bro. C. C. 609 ; Meliorucchy v. Mdiorucchy, 2 Ves. 24 ; 
 Anon. 10 Ves. 287 ; Dyott v. Dyott, 1 Madd. 187). In the 
 last case the defendant's answer had by mistake been filed 
 after he knew that the plaintiff had gone abroad, though 
 it was sworn long before. But a defendant does not, by 
 applying for time to answer, lose his right to security on 
 grounds dehors the bill, and not known at the time of so 
 applying, though they might have been discovered by 
 inquiry {Swan-)/ v. Swanzy, 4 K Sf J. 257). And, in 
 order to constitute a waiver, the defendant's proceedings 
 must be voluntary. Therefore, a defendant was held not 
 to have lost his right by filing affidavits in answer to a 
 motion for an injunction, notice of which was given on 
 the same day as the bill was filed, or even by obtaining 
 further time to answer the plaintiff's affidavits, and 
 appearing on a motion {Murroiv v. Wilson, 12 Beav. 
 497) ; or by appearing on and submitting to a motion for 
 transfer into Court of trust funds, or by appearing on a 
 summons for production of documents and resisting it 
 (Cooper V. Purton, 8 W. R. 702). In Drinan v. Mannix 
 (3 Dr. §• W. 155), the defendant, before moving for 
 security, demurred to the bill, which had been filed in the 
 vacation, but at the same time gave notice that the 
 demurrer was filed without prejudice to the defendant's 
 right to security, and Sir E. Sugden, L.C. held that her 
 right was not lost ; and see Watteeu v. Billam, 3 De G. Sf S. 
 516, where, however, the facts on this point are not clear. 
 In TVyllie v. Ellice, 11 Beav. 99, it was held by Lord 
 Lano-dale, M.R., that though the defendant had lost his 
 right to security in the suit as it stood before amendment. 
 
14 SECURITY FOB COSTS. 
 
 yet he was not precluded from obtaining such security 
 (by an order of course) after the plaintiff had filed his 
 amended bill, wherein he was described as out of the 
 jurisdiction. The contrary, however, seems to have been 
 held by V. C. Wood in Cooper v. Purton, 8 W. R. 702, 
 where security was allowed to a defendant made so by 
 amendment, but refused to original defendants continued 
 on the record. The point, therefore, is doubtful, though 
 on principle it would seem that Lord Langdale's decision 
 is the preferable one. In In re Seidler, 12 Sim. 106, the 
 respondent obtained security for costs from the petitioner, 
 notwithstanding that he had filed affidavits in answer to 
 those in support of the petition. This decision, however, 
 was disapproved of by V. C. Kindersley in Atkins v. Cooh, 
 3 Drew. 694 ; but see Murrow v. Wilson, lac. cit. In 
 Ireland a defendant loses his right if the time for answering 
 has expired, though no step has been taken in the cause 
 {Eyre v. Dwyer, Sau. §• Sc. 653 ; Nolan v. French, 10 Ir. 
 Eq. Rep. 24) ; but this does not appear to be the practice 
 in England. In Jackson v. Davenport, 29 Beav. 212, the 
 defendant had lost his right as against the original 
 plaintiff, but was held entitled to security as against his 
 personal representative, also resident out of the jurisdic- 
 tion, on his obtaining the usual order for revivor. 
 Form of The order is that all proceedings be stayed until the 
 
 eor er. plaintiff gives security {Fox v. Blew, 5 Mad. 147); and 
 for form of order see Seton, 1269. It is ordered by 
 Amount 40 Cons. Ord. r. 6, that ' one hundred pounds shall 
 of the bs t^e penal sum in the bond to be given as security 
 security. to answer costs by any plaintiff out of the jurisdiction 
 of the Court.' Formerly it was £40 only. £100 is 
 now the proper penalty of the bond to be given in all 
 cases in which security for costs is required by the Court 
 {Bailey Y. Gundry, 1 Keen, 53) ; and in Australian Steam 
 Ship Company {Limited) v. Fleming, 4 K. §■ J. 407, it 
 was held that a bond in the penalty of £100, or £120 paid 
 into Court, was a 'sufficient security' within 20 & 21 
 
SECURITY FOR COSTS. 15 
 
 A'ict. c. 14, s. 24, see ante, p. 10. But it seems that where 
 a petitioner is reqiiired to give security, £40 is still 
 considered sufficient amount (/« re Pasinore, 1 Beav. 94 ; 
 Atkins V. Cook, 5 If. R. 381). The amount fixed by the 
 General Orders will not be increased under special cir- 
 cumstances, unless the plaintifif asks for some favour, ia 
 which case terms may be imposed upon him ( Gaffe v. Ladt/ 
 Stafford, 2 Ve.t. 557 ; Offilvy v. Hearne, 11 Ves. 598), 
 as where a next friend is changed on the application of 
 the plaintiiF (Paywe v. Little, 16 Beav. 563), or where an 
 irregular amendment, by striking out the names of co- 
 plaintiffs, is allowed to stand on security being given for 
 costs i^Fellowes v. Deere, 3 Beav. 353). A reference will 
 then be directed to fix the amount ; but see Davey v. 
 Bennett, 3 W. R. 353. In Hart v. Tulk, 6 Ha. 612, 
 Y. C. Wigram allowed the plaintiffs in such case to pay 
 the costs of the suit up to that time, instead of finding 
 security. The plaintiff may, instead of giving security, 
 pay into Court the £100, together with a sufficient sum 
 to cover the expense of paying it in and getting it out, 
 usually £120 {Cliffe v. IVilkinson, 4 Sim. 122; Australian 
 Steam Ship Company {^Limited) v. Fleming, loc. cit.) ; but 
 the undertaking of his solicitor to be answerable for the 
 costs is not sufficient {Re Norman, 11 Beav. 401). 
 ' Where security for costs is directed to be given, such 
 security shall be given to the Clerk of Eecords and Writs 
 in whose division the cause or matter is' (1 Cons. Ord. 
 r. 38). For the practice in settling the bond to be given, 
 see 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 865. 
 
 The plaintiff's proposed sureties must be solvent ^^^^^.^^ 
 persons {Cliffe v. Wilkinson, loc. cit.); and it is im- 
 proper that his soKcitor should be his surety (Panton 
 V. Labertouche, 1 Ph. 265) ; but in Plestow v. John- 
 son, 1 Sm. §• G. app. XX., the bond of the British 
 Guarantee Association, incorporated by Act of Parha- 
 ment, was held sufficient security. If the surety dies or 
 becomes bankrupt, the plaintiff must find fresh security 
 
16 
 
 SECURITY FOR COSTS. 
 
 Each 
 defendant 
 entitled to 
 separate 
 security. 
 
 Applica- 
 tion for, 
 liow to be 
 made. 
 
 Effect of 
 order. 
 
 {Lautour v. Holcombe, 1 Ph. 263 ; Veitch v. Irving, 11 
 Sim. 122) ; but the defendant must not delay his appli- 
 cation for that purpose, otherwise proceedings will not 
 be stayed in the mean time (^Lautour v. Holcombe, 
 loc. cit). 
 
 In Ogborne v. Bartlett {Beames on Costs, app. 9), liie 
 assignees of a bankrupt, on being made defendants, were 
 allowed security, though the original defendant (the 
 bankrupt) had previously obtained it ; and in Lowndes v. 
 Robinson, 4 Mad. 465, it was held that each defendant 
 employing a separate clerk in Court, was entitled to a 
 separate bond, but the plaintiff was bound to pay one 
 bond only. 
 
 Applications for security for costs are properly made 
 by summons in Chambers ( Tynte v. Hodge, 2 Jo. Sf H. 
 692). If the plaintiff is described in the original bill, or, 
 it seems, in the amended bill ( Wyllie v. Ellice, 1 1 Beav. 
 99, but see ante, pp. 13, 14), the order is of course. Other- 
 wise the application must be supported by affidavit, and it 
 seems that evidence of behef, putting the plaintiff to 
 answer it, is sufficient {Busk v. Beetham, 2 Beav. 538 ; 
 Ainslie v. Sims, 17 Beav. 57). As to the necessary evi- 
 dence when a limited company is plaintiff, see ante, p. 10. 
 
 ' The day on which an order that the plaintiff do give 
 security for costs is served, and the time thenceforward 
 until and including the day on which such security is 
 given, shall not be reckoned in the computation of time 
 allowed to a defendant to plead, answer, or demur, or 
 otherwise make his defence to the suit ' (40 Cons. Ord. 
 r. 14). But taking out a summons for security for costs 
 does not prevent the time allowed for demurring from 
 ruMmng{ Henderson Y. Atkins, 7 W. R. 318). If, therefore, 
 there is danger of the time running out before the order 
 can be obtained, the defendant, it would seem, should 
 plead or demur, gi^dng notice that he does so without 
 prejudice to his right of security for costs {Drinan v. 
 Mannix, 3 Dr. §• W. 155). 
 
SECURITY FOR COSTS. 17 
 
 In Camac v. Grant, 1 Sim. 348, Sir A. Hart, V. C. Where 
 ordered that a plaintiff who had made default in giving makes 
 security should give security mthin a limited time, or his ^f'!'^^ "> 
 bill be dismissed. That judge, however, appears to have secm-ity. 
 afterwards doubted the correctness of his order ; see 
 2 Sim. 570. And it was disapproved of by Lord 
 Lyndhurst, C, in Lautour v. Holcombe, 1 Ph. 263, 264 ; 
 and by V. C. Shadwell, in Fort v. Bank of England, 
 10 Sim. 616. The practice, however, is now settled, after 
 some fluctuation of opinion, in accordance with Camac v. 
 Grant; see Giddings v. Giddings, 10 Beav. 29, where all 
 the earlier cases are collected in the note ; Cooper v. 
 Burton, 1 N. R. 468. The time limited in the latter case 
 was a fortnight. The dismissal will be with costs 
 ( Giddings v. Giddings, loc. cit.; Denny v. Mars, Set. 1279). 
 But a reasonable time, which will vary according to the 
 circumstances, must elapse between the original order for 
 the plaintiff to give security, and the order limiting the 
 time; see O' Conner v. Sierra Nevada Company, 23 Beav. 
 608, where the motion was held to be premature. 
 
 For the mode of putting the bond in force against the Bond, how 
 plaintiff and his sureties, see 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 866 ; and 
 Braithwaite's R. 8f W. Practice, 535, 536. 
 
18 
 
 CHAPTEE III. 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY, 
 
 Plea or 
 
 demurrer 
 
 oyerruled. 
 
 Plea. 
 
 DemuiTer 
 
 partially 
 
 oyerruled. 
 
 Demurrer 
 overruled 
 without 
 costs ; 
 
 Sect. I. — Costs of Pleas and Demurrers. 
 
 ' Where any plea or demurrer is overruled, the defendant 
 shall pay to the plaintiff the taxed costs occasioned 
 thereby, unless the Court shall otherwise direct' (14 
 Cons. Ord. r. 12). 
 
 Where a plea is directed to stand for answer, with liberty 
 to except, the plaintiff is, in general, entitled to costs 
 {Howling v. Butler, 2 Mad. 245) ; but they must be asked 
 for at the hearing of the plea ( Yarnall v. Rose, 2 Keen, 
 326). As to the costs of a plea overruled, with liberty to 
 amend, see Clayton v. Meadows, 2 Ha. 26, 32. 
 
 Where a demurrer on two grounds succeeds as to one, 
 and fails as to another, no costs are given on either side 
 {Benson v. Hadfield, 5 Beav. 546 ; Allan v. Houlden, 
 6 Beav. 148) ; but in Davis v. Reid, 5 Sim. 443, a de- 
 murrer by a witness to two interrogatories was allowed as 
 to one, and overruled as to the other, and the Court gave 
 the witness half his costs. In Postgate v. Barnes, 1 N. 
 R. 389, where the defendant put in a plea to part of the 
 bill and a demurrer to the rest, and the former succeeded 
 and the latter failed, no costs were given on either 
 side. 
 
 In Reed v. O'Brien, 7 Beav. 32, the Court overruled a 
 demurrer for want of equity, but refused the plaintiff the 
 costs of it, on the ground of the vagueness and uncer- 
 tainty of the allegations. In Barber v. Barber, 4 Dr. 
 666, a demurrer to the jurisdiction was overruled without 
 costs on the ground that the plaintiff might prove to be 
 
PLEAS AND DEMUKRERS. 19 
 
 entitled to some relief, though not to the principal relief or with 
 sought by his bill. It seems that the Court ^yill hesitate reslrred. 
 to determine on demurrer any legal question of great 
 diflSculty, and will, in such case, overrule the demurrer, 
 ■with liberty to raise the objection by answer, reserving 
 the costs imtil the hearing (Evans v. Evans, 18 Jur. 
 666, s. c. 23, L. J. ch. 827 ; Davenish v. Broun, 4 IV. R. 
 783 ; Mortimer v. Hartley, 3 De G. ^' S. 321 ; Great 
 JVestern Railway Company v. Metropolitan Railway Com- 
 pany, 2 N. R. 209 ; TValsham v. Stainton, 3 N. R. 56) ; and 
 see Cochrane v. JVillis, 3 i\'. R. 447, where the costs were 
 made costs in the cause. In Singleton v. Selwyn, 3 N. R. 
 27, V. C. Wood overruled the demurrer, but reserved the 
 costs till the hearing or further order, apparently because 
 his Honour was inclined to think the suit unnecessary. 
 
 Oa reversing an order allo'wing a demurrer, the costs Demurrer 
 are ordered to be refunded (Oats v. Chapman, 1 Ves. 541, on appeal. 
 2 Ves. 100). 
 
 The costs of demurrers by witnesses follow the same Demurrer 
 rule as those of an ordinary demurrer (Saivyer v. Birch- 
 more, 3 3Iy. ^' K. 578 ; Strathmore v. Strathmore, Hi. J. 
 n.s. ch. 400, 6 Jur. 1101; Langley v. Fisher, 5 Beav. 
 443, s. c. on appeal, 14 L. J. n. s. ch. 302 ; Wright v. 
 Wilkin, 4 Jur. n. s. 527). 
 
 ' "Where a plea to the whole or a part of a bill is Plea 
 allowed upon argument, the plaintiff, unless he under- argument. 
 takes to reply to the plea, or unless the Court otherwise 
 directs, shall pay to the party by whom the plea is filed 
 the costs of the plea ; and, where the plea is to the whole 
 bill, the costs of the suit also : and in such last-mentioned 
 case the order allowing the plea shall direct the dismissal ' 
 of the bill ' (14 Cons. Ord. r. 16). 
 
 Under the old practice, as regulated by the 31st Ord. Under 
 
 ■*■ - _£• 1 t^e old 
 
 of 1828, the plaintiff had to pay the costs ol a plea practice. 
 allowed on argument, though he undertook to reply to it ; 
 but the other costs of the suit were reserved (Fry v. 
 Richardson, 10 Sim. 475). Where the same sohcitor set 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENEE2VLLT. 
 
 Two pleas 
 set down 
 ty same 
 solicitor. 
 
 Plea 
 allowed 
 without 
 costs. 
 
 Where 
 plaintiff 
 submits to 
 the plea 
 after 
 setting it 
 down. 
 
 Costs of 
 amended 
 plea 
 allowed. 
 
 Where 
 issue is 
 joined on 
 a plea. 
 
 Demurrer 
 allowed. 
 
 Demurrer 
 allowed 
 without 
 costs. 
 
 down two pleas for want of parties for two defendants, 
 and they were both allowed, the plaintiff was ordered to 
 pay the costs of one plea only ( Tarhuck v. Woodcock, 3 
 Beav. 289).. In Jones v. Binns, 3 N. R. 352, a plea of 
 bankruptcy (after bill filed) was allowed, with liberty to 
 amend and without costs. 
 
 Where the plaintiff sets down a plea for argument, and 
 afterwards moves that it may not be in the paper, and 
 obtains an order to amend, the defendant will be entitled 
 to taxed costs {Jones v. Wattier, 4 Sim. 128 ; Lopes v. de 
 Tastet, 3 Mad. 183); and see the analogous practice in 
 the case of a demurrer, post, p. 22. Where a plea was 
 overruled, with liberty to amend, and an amended plea 
 was allowed, the defendant received only such costs as he 
 would have had if the plea which was allowed had been 
 the plea which was first filed ( Clayton v. Meadows, 2 Ha. 
 26, 32.) 
 
 If issue be taken on a plea, and the defendant by evi- 
 dence establishes the truth of it, the course of the Court 
 is to dismiss the bill with costs {Pitman v. Edwards, 4 L. 
 Jch. 159. 
 
 ' Where a demurrer to the whole or part of a biU is 
 allowed upon argument, the plaintiff, unless the Court 
 shall otherwise direct, shall pay to the demurring party the 
 costs of the demurrer ; and where the demurrer is to the 
 whole bill, the costs of the suit also ' (14 Cons. Ord. r. 13). 
 
 Notwithstanding this order, the question of costs is in 
 the discretion of the Court; and for the purpose of de- 
 termining them the Court will regard the allegations in 
 the bill, though admitted only for the purpose of the de- 
 murrer {Schneider v. Lizardi, 9 Beav. 461); and see 
 Mayor, Sfc, of Basingstoke v. Lord Bolton, 1 Drew. 270. 
 In Vansittart v. Vansittart, A K. 8f J. 62, s.c. on appeal, 
 2 De G. Sf J. 249, which was a suit by a wife for 
 specific performance of an agreement made in considera- 
 tion of her abandoning a suit for divorce, a demurrer by 
 die husband to the whole bill was allowed, but without 
 
PLEAS AND DEMURRERS. 21 
 
 costs ; see, however, per L. J. Knight Bruce, 2 De G. ^ 
 J., p. 258. But in Walrond \. JValrond, Johns. 18, which 
 was a suit for specific performance of an agreement for 
 separation simply, the husband's demurrer was allowed 
 with costs. In Bothomley v. Squires, 1 Jur. n. s. 694, 
 the bill stated a case of fraudulent collusion, and V. C. 
 Kinderslev allowed a general demurrer, on the grounds 
 that the allegations of fraud were too general ; but 
 "v^ithout costs, because the defendants, by demurring, had 
 admitted the fraud. Sed. qu., for a defendant is not justi- 
 fied in not demurring, by the bill containing charges of 
 fraud {Nesbitt v. Berridge, 1 N. R. 345) ; and his not 
 ha\-ing demurred will be grounds for refusing him his 
 extra costs, if he is successful at the hearing. In Lund 
 Y. Blanshard, 4 Ha. 23, Y. C. "SYigram held a de- 
 murrer for want of parties good, though the absent 
 parties were not specifically named (see Pyle v. Price, 6 
 Ves. 781; Attorney General v. Corporation of Poole, 4 
 My. §• Cr. 32, notwithstanding Mitf. on Pleading 
 [180]), and on the authority of Lord Cottenham, C, in 
 Furze x. Sharwood, 5 My. 8f Cr. 96 (though apparently 
 against his own opinion) allowed it with costs. It seems 
 that the inclination of the Court is not to refuse the de- 
 fendant the costs of a demurrer allowed : see per V. C. 
 "Wood, Johns. 28. T\Tiere a question of the construction 
 of a will is decided on demurrer, the Court will, if it was 
 a proper question to raise, give the costs of the demurrer 
 out of the estate {Evans v. Rosser, 3 N. R. 685). 
 
 Where a demurrer to the whole bill is allowed, but with DemurreF 
 
 to wliote 
 
 leave to amend, the plaintiff pays to the defendant the bill 
 costs of the demurrer only, and not the whole costs of ^'|°^ig^^^g, 
 the suit {Hammond v. Messenger, 9 Sim. 338). to amend. 
 
 As to the costs of a demurrer on two grounds, allowed ■°^^™^^''' 
 as to one, and overruled as to the other, see ante, p. 18. allowed. 
 
 Before the demurrer is set down, the plaintiff may Where 
 
 , „ ,,.,.,, , plamtitf 
 
 obtain an order of course to amend his bill on payment submits 
 of twenty shillings costs ( Warburton v. Blackmail Railway ^°^ 
 
22 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY 
 
 i. before 
 it is set 
 down, 
 ii. after 
 it is set 
 down. 
 
 What costs 
 payable on 
 demurrer 
 to whole 
 bill 
 allowed. 
 
 Motion to 
 strike 
 demnrring 
 defen- 
 dant's 
 name out 
 of record. 
 
 Demurrer 
 ore tenus. 
 
 Company, 2 Beav. 255), and the defendant's extra costs of 
 preparing and filing it will not be costs in the cause 
 {Bainhrigge v. Moss, Z K. ^ J. 62) ; but where a de- 
 murrer has been set down, it is not a case for a common 
 order to amend, and the plaintiff must pay the costs of 
 the demurrer {Hoflick v. Reynolds, 9 W. i?. 398); and 
 see the analogous practice in the case of a plea, ante, p. 20. 
 If the demurrer is not filed before amendment, the costs 
 of preparing it will be costs in the cause {Bainhrigge v. 
 Moss, loc. cit). 
 
 An order allowing a demurrer to the whole bill carries 
 with it the costs of a pending motion ( Gladstone v. The 
 Ottoman Bank, I N. R. 513) ; even where the motion has 
 stood over at the request of the defendant {Finden v. 
 Stephens, 12 Jur. 319, overruling s. c. 11 Jur. 898). But 
 if leave to amend is given, the motion is not entirely lost ; 
 see Harding v. Tingey, 4 N. R. 10, where V. C. Kindersley, 
 following the decision of V. C. Wood in Rawlins v. Lam- 
 bert, IJ. SfH. 458, gave the plaintiff a week to amend his 
 bill without prejudice to the motion, and if the motion was 
 not brought on on the first seal day after the week, the 
 plaintiff to pay the costs of it. In Dew v. Clarke, IS.SfS. 
 108, a demurrer having been allowed to a bill to examine 
 witnesses de bene esse, the plaintiff, who had obtained an 
 ex parte order for the examination of the witnesses, was 
 ordered to pay the costs of the depositions, but not of the. 
 cross-examination. 
 
 In Barry v. Croskey, 10 W. R. 76, a motion by a de- 
 fendant, whose demurrer to the whole bill had been 
 allowed, for the Record and Writ clerk to strike his name 
 out of the record, was allowed with costs. 
 
 ' Where any grounds of demurrer are urged on arguing 
 a demurrer, beyond the grounds therein expressed, and 
 those grounds which are so expressed are disallowed, the 
 defendant shall pay the same costs as if the demurrer were 
 overruled, although the grounds of demurrer so newly 
 urged may be allowed' ;^14 Cons. Ord. r. 1). 
 
PLEAS AND DEMURRERS. 23 
 
 A practice seems formerly to have prevailed of gi'v'ing Former 
 no costs to either side, when the demurrer on the record fo costs. 
 Tvas overruled and a demurrer ore tenus allowed ; see the 
 cases collected in Beames' Orders, p. 174, n. 39. But Present 
 nov:, in such a case, the general rule is, that the defendant 
 must pay the costs of the demurrer on the record, and no 
 order Trill be made as to the costs of the one ore tenus 
 (^Macyntire v. Connell, 1 Sim. n. s. 251 , where the margi- 
 nal note is incorrect ; Attorney- General v. Broivn, 1 
 Swans. 265, 288) ; and semble the Court will not be dis- 
 posed to depart from that rule (^Mortimer x. Fraser, 2 My. 
 h; Cr. 173). In Broicn v. Douglas, 11 Sim. 283, however, 
 the Court refused the plaintiff the costs of the demurrer 
 on the record, but allowed the demurrer ore tenus without 
 costs ; and see Cooper v. Earl Powis, 3 De G. §• <S. 688, 
 where it does not appear whether the plaintiff had the 
 costs of the demurrer on the record. 
 
 If the plaintiff, on demurrer ore tenus for want of parties 
 being allowed with leave to amend, desires to amend more 
 extensively than by adding parties, he must pay the 
 defendant the costs of the demurrer (^Newton v. Earl of 
 Egmont, 4 Sim. 574, 585). 
 
 Where a plea, or demurrer to the whole or part of a Where 
 bill, is not set down for argument within the times limited demurrer 
 by the Consolidated Orders,* and the plaintiff does not ^^^^^ ««* 
 serve an order for leave to amend, or, in the case of a 
 plea, undertake to reply thereto, the same costs are pay- 
 able by the plaintiff as if the plea or demurrer had been 
 allowed on argument (14 Cons. Ord. rr. 17, 14, 15, and 
 see the notes thereto in Morgan's Ch. Acts §• Ord.). 
 The order for the payment of the costs is now of course 
 {Jacobs V. Hooper, 1 W. R. &l). 
 
 * That is twelve days in the case of a demurrer to the whole hill, and 
 three weeks in the cases of a demurrer to part, of the biU, and a plea to the 
 whole or part of the bill (14 Cons. Ord. rr. 14, 15, 17). 
 
24 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Fixed costs 
 on amend- 
 ment. 
 
 'Where the 
 plaintiff is 
 entitled to 
 an order of 
 course 
 ■without 
 costs. 
 
 Where the 
 plaintiff is 
 entitled to 
 an order of 
 course on 
 payment 
 of costs. 
 
 Section II. — Costs of Amendment of Bill. 
 
 ' The fixed costs of amendment payable by the plaintiff 
 according to the course of the Court are 20s., which are 
 paid to the solicitor appearing for each defendant, or for 
 each set of defendants, when the order to amend is served ' 
 (1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 529). But the plaintiff is entitled to 
 an order of course to amend without costs (1) at any time 
 before the defendant has answered ; (2) once after answer, 
 and before replication, if the plaintiff requires no further 
 answer ; (3) if the answer is insufficient, or the defendant 
 submits to answer exceptions for insufficiency, and in this 
 case the order may be that the defendant answer the 
 exceptions and amendments together. If there is only one 
 defendant, or all the defendants answer together, it would 
 seem that, inasmuch as an insufficient answer is to be 
 treated as no answer at all {Mendizabel v. Hullett, 1 R. 
 §• M. 324 ; Bird v. Hustler, id. 327), any number of 
 orders of course to amend may be obtained before a 
 sufficient answer is put in ; but see Dolly v. Challin, 1 1 
 Beav. 61. But where the defendants answer separately, 
 if one defendant's answer is sufficient, only one prder of 
 course to amend can be afterwards obtained (Davis v. 
 Front, 5 Beav. 375 ; Anon. 7 Jur. 272 ; Duncombe v. 
 Lewis, 10 Beav. 273 ; Bainbrigge v. Baddeleg, 12 Beav. 152). 
 
 The plaintiff is entitled to an order of course to amend 
 upon payment of 20*. costs (1) after a plea or demurrer 
 has been filed, but the order of setting it down has not 
 been served ( Warburton v. Blachoall Railway Company, 
 2 Beav. 255 ; and see Hoflick v. Reynolds, 9 W. R. 398); 
 (2) if a further answer is required, but in that case without 
 costs as to those defendants from whom no further answer 
 is required. No costs are payable to any defendant made 
 so by amendment. See DanieWs Ch. Pr. 287 ; 1 Smith's 
 Ch. Pr. 528 ; Morgan's Ch. Acts Sj- Ord., Notes to Cons. 
 Ord, ix. 
 
AJIEXDMENT OF BILL. 25 
 
 In all other cases leave to amend must be obtained by Where 
 special application, and the costs of such application will ^^'ij^^^y^^ 
 be disposed of in the order, either by making them costs is made. 
 in the cause, or by fixing the amount to be paid by the 
 plaintiff (iSmtV/t, he. c/'t.). 
 
 ' ^YheIl the plaintiff is directed to pay to the defendant Defen- 
 the costs of the suit, the costs occasioned to the defendant ^^f^ , 
 by any amendment of the bill shall be deemed to be part of amend- 
 of such defendant's costs in the cause (except as to any cMeri"!! 
 amendment which may have been made by special leave ^^^ <=°sts in 
 of the Court, or which shall appear to have been rendered 
 necessary by the default of such defendant) ; but there 
 shall be deducted from such costs any sum which may 
 have been paid by the plaintiff according to the course of 
 the Court, at the time of any amendment' (40 Cons. 
 Ord. r. 7). 
 
 The Court will not, except under special circumstances, AViere 
 allow the plaintiff to ^^-ithdraw replication and amend his ''^^^'^ 'f 
 
 ^ • _ J^ _ given to 
 
 bill, so as to put fresh matter in issue. In Horton v. withdraw 
 Brocklehurst, 29 Beav. 103, where the e^■idence was closed, anVamend 
 the Court refused permission to the plaintiff to do so. In ^'^l- 
 Champneys \. Buchan, 3 Drew. 5, where, after replication 
 filed, the plaintiff had discovered facts which he might 
 have known, but was not guilty of gross negligence in not 
 having discovered before, the Court gave leave to the 
 plaintiff to withdraw replication and amend his bill, on his 
 paying the costs of the suit up to that time, and of the then 
 application, and filing the amended biU within a week. In 
 Cooper X. Ricardo (30 April, 1862, Reg. lib. A. 738), where 
 evidence had been gone into, the Lords Justices ga"\'e 
 leave to withdraw replication and amend, without preju- 
 dice to such evidence being used, and gave the plaintiff 
 no costs, the defendant's costs to be costs in the cause. 
 
 Although the bill has been very extensively amended Where bill 
 by striking out allegations, the Court will not assume at -^ strikinK 
 the hearing that the statements struck out were absurd or o,"t allega- 
 unreasonable, or distinguish the costs of sTich amendment 
 from the general costs {Hardimjh.am v. Thumas, 3 Drew. 
 
26 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 353, 362). If it is desired to charge the plaintiff with the 
 costs of a case made by the original bill and struck out 
 of the amended bill, a special application must be made ; 
 and, semhle, the most convenient time for making it is 
 immediately upon the cause of complaint arising 
 {Mounsey v. Burnham, 1 Ha. 22) ; but in Stewart v. 
 Stewart, 22 Beav. 393 ; Leather Cloth Company v. 
 Bressey, 3 Giff. 474, the plaintiff was ordered at the 
 hearing to pay the costs of allegations struck out by 
 Amend- amendment. In order to charge the plaintiff with such 
 Texatioua additional costs, the amendments must have been vexatious 
 and and oppressive. See Monck v. Earl of Tankerville, 10 
 
 Sim. 264 ; Delaioney v. Delawney, 4 L. J. n, s. ch. 50, 
 where the application was refused ; and Strickland^. Strick- 
 land, Z Beav. 342 ; Watts v. Manning, 1 5'.§- <S'. 421, where 
 the application was granted, and in the latter case the 
 defendant was apparently allowed full costs and charges 
 "Where an as between solicitor and client. If the amended bill sets 
 different ^P * wholly different and inconsistent case from the ori- 
 ease is ginal bill, the defendant will be entitled to all the costs 
 
 made by 
 
 the of the suit up to the amendment of the bill {Smith v. 
 
 amended g^^^j^^ Q Q^^^^ 14^ . J)^^^ ^_ Wardell, 1 Dick. 329 ; 
 
 3Iavor V. Dry, 2 S. §• (S. 113 ; Bryant y. Lightfoot, 1 Jur. 
 
 20); but see Ahram v. Ward, 9 Jur. 1070; Allen -w. 
 
 Spring, 22 Beav. 615, where the application was refused. 
 
 And as to what amendments are permissible, see the cases 
 
 collected in the note to Allen v. Spring, loc. cit. ; and 
 
 Parker v. Nickson, 2 N. JR. 54:. 
 Where ' Where, upon taxation, a plaintiff who has obtained a 
 
 ment has decree with costs is not allowed the costs of any amend- 
 been un- nient of the biU upon the grounds of its having been 
 
 necessarily -i n i 
 
 made. unnecessarily made, the defendant's costs, occasioned by 
 
 such amendment, shall be taxed, and the amount thereof 
 deducted from the costs to be paid by the defendant to 
 the plaintiff' (40 Cons. Ord. r. 8). Special directions 
 may be given to the taxing master to see whether matter 
 has been improperly introduced by amendment, and to 
 
EXCEPTIONS FOE INSUFFICIENCY AND SCANDAL. 27 
 
 charge the plaintiff therewith {Burchell v. Giles, 11 Beav. 
 34) ; and see, as to an xmnecessary amendment, Pledge v. 
 Buss, Johns. 663. 
 
 The defendant's solicitor, by accepting the costs of Irregu- 
 amendment, waives all objections for irregularity inr^he o^'er.'how 
 order gi%"ing the plaintiff leave to amend ( Tarleton v. waived. 
 Dyer, 1 R. V M. 1 : Hair v. JVoodbridge, ibid. 5 ; Boswell 
 V. Tucker, 2 K. 188). 
 
 k?ECT. III. — Costs of Exceptions for Insufficiency and 
 Scandal. 
 
 The costs of exceptions for insufficiency or scandal Costs of 
 are in the discretion of the Court, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35, Sly°°' 
 ss. 27 & 32 *, but usually follow the result. See Neicton follow the 
 V. Dimes, 3 Jur. n. s. 583, where exceptions were allowed ; 
 Stent v. JTickens, 5 De G. ^ S. 384 ; and A— v. B— 
 10 ir. R. 617, where exceptions were overruled. And 
 such costs are payable immediately ( Thomas v. Rawlings, 
 27 Beav. 140, 375).t But they must be expressly asked But must 
 for, otherwise the direction for their payment will not be pressly 
 inserted in the order ; and the overruHng or allowance of mentioned 
 exceptions ' with the usual order ' will not carry costs order. 
 {Earp V. Lloyd, 4 K. Sf J. 58 ; Crossley v. Stewart, 2 
 N. R. 57). Where some exceptions are allowed and some 
 overruled, the costs of those allowed will be set off against 
 
 » In 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. (edit. 1862), 614, it is stated that 'the costs of 
 exceptions are fixed, unless otherwise directed.' This was formerly the 
 practice under Lord Clarendon's Order {Beamss' Orders, 182, 317, and see 
 Const V. Ebers, 1 Mad. 530, Poole v. Gordon, 16 L. J. n. s. ch. 265), hut 
 according to the present practice costs of exceptions are certainly taxed costs, 
 and that practice seems to have prevailed since exceptions have been heard 
 by the Court in the first instance, under 13 & 14 Vict., c. 35, s. 27. Lord 
 Clarendon's Order is not incorporated in the Cons. Orders ; but qu. whether 
 the usage under it, if then prevailing, would be preserved by 1 Cons. Ord. r. 2. 
 
 t The question raised in Hughes v. C'ler/c, 6 Ha. 195, therefore, can no 
 longer arise. 
 
28 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Where a 
 defendant 
 submits to 
 exceptions. 
 
 Wiere a 
 defen- 
 dant's 
 answer is 
 evasive. 
 
 Costs 
 
 occasioned 
 by scandal. 
 
 those overruled {Willis v. Child, 13 Beav. 454); and for 
 form of order, see Seton, 1256. 
 
 ' Where a defendant submits to exceptions for in- 
 sufficiency which have not been set down for hearing, 
 he shall pay to the plaintiff twenty shillings costs. And 
 where a plaintiff obtains a decree with costs, the costs 
 occasioned to the plaintiff by the insufficiency of the 
 answer of any defendant, who shall have submitted to 
 exceptions for insufficiency, shall be deemed to be part 
 of the plaintiff's costs in the cause, such sum being 
 deducted therefrom as shall have been paid by the 
 defendant upon the exceptions to the said answer being 
 submitted to ' (40 Cons. Ord. r. 13). This rule applies 
 only where there has been no application, and no direc- 
 tions have been given by the Court {Poole v. Gordon, 16 
 L. J. n. s. ch. 265). 
 
 Where the defendant's answer is so insufficient as to 
 be evasive and delusive, and only put in to gain further 
 time, it will be ordered to be taken off the file, the 
 defendant paying the costs of the application for that 
 purpose, and any costs properly incurred by the plaintiff 
 in respect of such document having been filed {Reed v. 
 Barton, 5 W. R. 240) ; and see Lynch v. Lecesne, 1 Ha. 
 626 ; Brooks v. Burton, lY.^C. C. C. 278. But formerly 
 this seems not to have been permitted, and the only course 
 was to except {Marsh v. Hunter, 3 Mad. 437). 
 
 In ex parte Simpson, 15 Ves. 476, an affidavit in 
 bankruptcy was ordered to be taken off the file as 
 scandalous and impertinent, with costs against the soli- 
 citor who made it, as between solicitor and client. Cf. 
 ex parte Thorp, 1 Ves. Junr. 394; ex parte Porter, 2 M. 
 8f A. 220. 
 
 In Ratray v. George,!^ Ves. 232, it was held, that coun- 
 sel and agent are liable for costs on account of scandal 
 and impertinence, and cf Emerson v. Dallison, 1 Ch. Rep. 
 194. In Bishop v. Willis, 5 Beav. 83, a solicitor having 
 put scandalous matter in an answer, and put counsel's 
 
COSTS AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES. 29 
 
 name to it without his authority, was committed and 
 ordered to pay costs. 
 
 Exceptions for impertinence are now abolished, 15 & 16 Imper- 
 Vict. c. 86, s. 17, and instead thereof, pleadings, &c. 
 improper or of unnecessary length are considered at the 
 hearing (40 Cons. Ord. r. 9). 
 
 tinenoe. 
 
 Sect. IV. — Costs and Expenses of Witnesses. 
 
 Owing to the recent extensive changes in the mode of 
 taking evidence in Chancery, many of the reported cases 
 on this subject are now obsolete. Only those cases will 
 be here referred to which, it is conceived, have any 
 bearing upon the present practice. 
 
 When any person is called to give evidence in chief. Witness 
 or to be cross-examined on evidence already given by ^j^ g^_ 
 him, he is entitled to his reasonable expenses; and if penses 
 they are not tendered to him he may refuse to be sworn, ^eing 
 This appKes as well to a party to the cause called to be sworn ; 
 examined, as to a witness stranger to the cause (Davey whether a 
 
 1 • 1 n P^'rty or a 
 
 V. Durrant, 24 Beav. 493). In regulating the allow- stranger. 
 ances to witnesses, the Court adopts the rules followed Wliat 
 at Common Law {Nokes v. Gibbon, 5 W. ^.216, 26 allowed to 
 L. J. ch. 208; Clark v. Gill, IK. §• J". 19; Brocas v. witnesses. 
 Lloyd, 23 Beav. 129). A professional witness will be 
 allowed compensation for his loss of time at the rate of 
 one guinea each day, if resident in London (Nokes v. 
 Gibbon, loc. cit. ; Clark v. Gill, loc. cit.) ; and, semble, also 
 to expenses of cab hire {Turner v. Turner, 1 W. R. 
 573, 5 Jur. n. s. 839). And any professional man, in the 
 absence of evidence to the contrary, will be assumed to 
 be practising his profession {ibid.). A country gentleman 
 subpoenaed as a witness is entitled to his full travelling ex- 
 penses, and one guinea per day for hotel or lodging whilst in 
 
30 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLT. 
 
 If witness 
 after 
 tender of 
 his ex- 
 penses 
 refuses to 
 be sworn. 
 
 A witness 
 refusing to 
 produce a 
 deed. 
 
 When 
 cross- 
 esamina- 
 tiou is 
 aban- 
 doned. 
 
 Examina- 
 tion 
 through 
 inter- 
 preter. 
 
 Practice 
 under 
 Order.Feb. 
 5, 1861, 
 i: 19. 
 
 town ( Turner v. Turner, loc. cit. ; Broeas v. Lloyd, he. cit). 
 If a witness after tender of a sufficient amount for Hs ex- 
 penses refuses to be sworn, an order may be obtained, on 
 an ex parte application, that he shall attend within four 
 days and be examined at his own expense {Wilson v. 
 Broughton, 6 L. J. n. s. eh. 205 ; Cast v. Poyser, 3 Sm. 
 §• G. 369 ; Nokes v. Gibbon, loc. cit.) ; but if such order 
 directs that he shall' pay the costs of the application, it 
 is irregular (Nokes v. Gibbon, loc. cit. ; Cast v. Poyser, on 
 appeal, 26 L. J. eh. 355). In Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 3 
 Sim. 285, affirmed by Lord Brougham, C. (1 R. 8fM. 358), 
 a person who refused, without sufficient reason, to produce 
 a deed in his possession to be proved by the subscribing 
 witness, was ordered to produce the deed at his own 
 expense, and to pay the expenses of the witness attend- 
 ing to prove it, and all other expenses caused by his 
 refusal.' A solicitor is not justified in refusing to produce 
 a deed in his possession, to be proved on behalf of persons 
 not his clients, because he has a lien upon it for costs due 
 from his clients (Brassington v. Brassington, \ S. &( S. 
 455 ; Hope v. Liddell, 7 De G. M. & G. 331), even when 
 the party requiring production claims under his client 
 {Lochett V. Cary, 3 N. R. 405). 
 
 If the cross-examining party abandons the cross- 
 examination, he cannot file interrogatories for the exami- 
 nation of the same person as an accounting party without 
 first paying him his expenses of the attempted cross- 
 examination {Davey v. Durrani, 2 De G. §• J. 506). 
 
 A party examining, by means of an interpreter, a wit- 
 ness ignorant of the English language, must bear the ex- 
 pense of the interpreter's services as well on the cross as 
 the direct examination {Plunhett v. Williams, 6 Ir. Eq. 
 R. 80.) 
 
 According to the present practice, as regulated by 
 Ord. 5 Feb., 1861, r. 19, the obligation to produce a 
 witness for cross-examination is upon the party whose 
 witness he is ; and the party producing is entitled to de- 
 
COSTS OF IXTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS, ETC. 31 
 
 mand the expenses thereof, in the first instance, from the 
 party requiring such production ; but such expenses are 
 ultimately borne as the Court directs. 
 
 A party applying for an order for the oral examination Practice 
 of any witnesses at the hearing under 15 & 16 Vict., c. levict!'^ 
 86, s. 39, does so at his own risk {Ridley v. Meek, 25 L. 86, s. 39. 
 T. 90) ; and see further as to the costs of such viva voce 
 examination, Martin v. Pycroft, 2 De G. M. Sf G. 785, 806 ; 
 Langford v. May, 22 L. J. ch. 978. 
 
 As to the costs of demm-rers by witnesses, see ante, 
 p. 19. 
 
 e. 
 
 Sect. V. — Costs of Interlocutory Applications, and 
 Petitions generally. 
 
 It is now settled, contrary to Lord Eldon's opinion in Costs of 
 
 Mann v. King, 18 Ves. 297, that the costs of a motion ^"^"ij'e^ 
 
 may be granted to the moving party, though they are not given 
 
 asked for in the notice of motion {Powell v. Cockerell, 4 not asked 
 
 Ha. 572; Clarke v. Jaques, 11 Beav. 623, in the re- for by the 
 
 ^ . notice. 
 
 porter's note to which case the earher cases are collected ; 
 Buller V. Gardiner, 12 Beav. 525 ; Dawson v. Jay, 2 fK 
 R. 598 ; Tampier v. Ingle, 1 N. R. 159); but not unless 
 the respondent appears {Pratt v. Walker, 19 Beav. 261): 
 and the same rule, it would seem, applies to petitions. But 
 an order for payment of costs made on motion ex parte is 
 irregular (Nokes v. Gibbon, 5 fV. R. 216 ; Cast v. Peyser, 
 26 L. J. ch. 353). 
 
 In disposing of the costs of interlocutory applications, sir J. 
 the Court is generally guided by the following rules laid ^^^^'^ 
 down by Sir J. Leach, V. C, in 1823 :— 
 
 ' First, That the party making a successful motion is 
 entitled to his costs, as costs in the cause ; but the party 
 opposing it is not entitled to his costs, as costs in the 
 cause. 
 
32 COSTS OF A SUIT GENEEALLY. 
 
 ' Second, That the party making a motion which fails 
 is not entitled to his costs, as costs in the cause ; but the 
 party opposing it is entitled to his costs, as costs in the 
 cause. 
 
 ' Third, That when a motion is made by one party and 
 not opposed by the other, the costs of both parties are 
 costs in the cause. 
 
 ' The Vice-Chancellor added that it was therefore the 
 duty of the Court whenever, by reason of special circum- 
 stances, it was not the intention of the Court that these 
 rules should apply, to give particular directions with re- 
 spect to the costs ; but that the Court very rarely gave 
 any special directions with respect to the costs of a motion 
 for the purpose of obtaining, continuing, or dissolving an 
 injunction to stay proceedings at law, leaving the costs of 
 such motions to abide the event of the suit' (1 <S'. §• 
 S. 357.) 
 Will now Before these rules were laid down, it was necessary, in 
 whenorder Order that the costs of a motion might be costs in the 
 is silent as cause, expressly to mention them in the order on the mo- 
 tion, or in the decree or order disposing of the costs of 
 the suit ( fVild v. Hobson, 4 Mad. 49) ; but now the costs 
 of the successful party will be costs in the cause without 
 express directions (Hind v. Whitmore, 2 K. Sf J. 463). 
 Escep- However, if a defendant unsuccessfully resists a motion 
 
 for an injunction, but succeeds at the hearing and gets 
 his costs of the suit, his costs of the motion will, notwith- 
 standing the first of the above rules, be costs in the causa 
 [Stevens v. Keating, 1 Mac. §r G. 659, overruling s. c. 13 
 Jur. 974). So, also, where the motion for an injunction 
 stood over until the trial of an action at law, and the bill 
 was ultimately dismissed with costs (Betts v. Clifford, 1 
 J. Sf H. 74). 
 
 The exceptions to Sir J. Leach's rules occur chiefly (1) 
 where, on the merits, the costs are reserved until the 
 hearing, (2) where the motion is rendered necessary by- 
 the default of the moving party, or for some other reason 
 
 tious. 
 
COSTS OF INTEKLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS, ETC. 33 
 
 he IS asking for an indulgence, (3) where the motion is 
 rendered necessary by the opposite party's default, or (4) 
 where the motion is irresular. 
 
 o 
 
 The costs are not generally reserved where a motion is Wliere tha 
 granted ; but where a plaintiff moving would fee entitled ^eservTd 
 to an injunction, but for the case made by the defendant's ""t^l ^^<^ 
 afl5davits (Rochdale Canal Company v. King, 2 Sim. n. s. '^"^°^' 
 78), especially if before answer {Waring v. Manchester, 
 Sheffield, Sf Lincolnshire Railway Company, 14 Jur. 613), 
 the costs are sometimes reserved until the hearing. 
 However, in Leiois v. Smith, 1 Mac. Sf G. 417, 420, Lord 
 Cottenham said ' he could not approve of the practice of 
 reserving the costs of a proceeding for the purpose of 
 eventually giving them to the unsuccessful party ; ' and 
 therefore, it would seem, that if the party unsuccessfully 
 moving gets his costs of the suit, the reserved costs of the 
 motion will not be given to him. On the same principle, 
 in Marsack v. Reeves, 6 Mad. 108, the costs of an un 
 successful motion, to dissolve an injunction against suing 
 on a post-obit bond, were not made costs in the cause, 
 because the plaintiff generally pays the costs of such 
 suits. When costs are reserved until the hearing, they 
 cannot be obtained in case the bill is dismissed before 
 the cause comes to a hearing ; and therefore it is a useful 
 precaution to ask, that the costs may be reserved, not 
 simply until the hearing, but until the hearing or further 
 order {Rumiold v. Forteath, 4 Jur. n. s. 608) ; and see 
 Jones V. Batten, 10 Ha. App. xi., where the order provided 
 for the event of the bill being dismissed before the hear- 
 ing, as to all or any of the defendants, by making the 
 costs of such defendants costs in the cause. Nor can Eesstved 
 reserved costs be obtained, unless they are expressly i^g g^. 
 mentioned to the Court and provided for by the decree p™ssly 
 
 , (> 1 ■ included 
 
 at the hearing ; and where the costs of the suit were in the 
 reserved till further consideration, but no mention was ^j*j™g 
 made of the reserved costs of a motion in the cause, it hearing. 
 was held that the costs of the motion were not included 
 
 D 
 
34 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 in the general reservation of costs, and no order could 
 
 be made respecting them {^Gardner v. Marshall, 14 Sim. 
 
 575 ; and see Whalley v. Ramadge, 8 L. T. n. s. 499). 
 
 However, in Vinei/ v. Chaplin, 3 De G. 8f J. 282, where 
 
 certain costs reserved till the hearing were by mistake 
 
 omitted to be mentioned in the decree, which had been 
 
 enrolled, the Court of Appeal on petition made a separate 
 
 order for their payment under the general liberty to 
 
 apply reserved : but see, on the other hand, Kendall v. 
 
 Marsters, 2 De G. F. §• J. 200, where Lord Campbell, C. 
 
 after consulting the registrars, expressed an opinion that 
 
 the ordinary direction for hberty to apply did not extend 
 
 to an application to be allowed costs,, not expressly 
 
 provided for in the decree. 
 
 Costs of a In Chilton v. Campbell, 20 Beav. 531, a motion to 
 
 motion restrain an action at law was refused, on the grounds 
 
 made costs that the plaintiffs equity might be enforced as well after 
 
 as before verdict, but the costs were made at once costs 
 
 in the cause : and see Clark v. Watkins, 1 N. JR. 342. 
 
 Wliere The party moving, although he is successful, must pay 
 
 the costs of his application, if it is rendered necessary by 
 
 sioned by his own default ; as where the plaintiff omitted to file 
 
 of tie interrogatories in time {Dakyns v. Garratt, 4 Jur. n. s. 
 
 moving 579 -^^here the costs were fixed at 50s.) ; or where he 
 
 party, , . , ^ 
 
 applies for leave to file a printed bill nunc pro tune 
 (Moss V. Syers, 2 N. R. 572, \\ W. R. 1047); or where 
 a party applies, after the evidence is closed, for leave to 
 file an affidavit negligently omitted to be filed before 
 or he is (Douglas v. Archbutt, 23 Beav. 293). The same rule in 
 
 seeking an , tit • 1 i ■■ 
 
 indul- general apphes, but less strictly, where the party movmg, 
 gence. though not in default, is seeking an indulgence from the 
 Court {Bartlett v. Harton, 17 Beav. 479, 482 ; Cocks v. 
 Pur day, 12 Beav. 451). The costs of an application to 
 advance a cause, whether successful or not, must therefore 
 be paid by the party applying {Browne v. Lockhart, 10 
 Sim. 420) ; but see contra, Carthew v. Barclay, ibid. 273, 
 where they were made costs in the cause. In Scott v. 
 
 in the 
 cause. 
 
 the motion 
 is occa- 
 
COSTS OF INTEELOOUTORY APPLICATIONS, ETC. 35 
 
 Corporation of Liverpool, 5 fF. iZ. 461, 669, an application 
 for leave to file an affidavit, after the evidence was closed, 
 in answer to affida-s-its reflecting on the mo\dng party's 
 character, was granted, but nothing is said in the report 
 as to costs. A stranger to the suit, moving pro interesse 
 suo, must, though completely successful, submit to pay aU. 
 the costs of the motion {Ponsardin v. Peto, 3 N. R. 237). 
 
 The staying of proceedings under a decree pending an Staying 
 appeal against it, is an indulgence which wiU be granted fngf ^^^er 
 only under special circumstances (see 1 Smithes Ch. Pr. decree 
 691); and the costs of an application for that purpose appeal.^ 
 must in general be paid by the party applying, whether 
 successful (Bauer v. Mitford, Q W. R. 135 ; Topham v. 
 Duke of Portland, 11 IV. R. 813) or unsuccessful {PFaldo 
 V. Caley, 16 Ves. 212). But in Earl of Shrewsbury v. 
 
 Trappes, 2 Be G. F. ^ J. 172, L. J. Knight Bruce said 
 that it was not an inflexible rule that a person applying 
 under such circumstances must pay the costs of the 
 application; and in Morison v. Morison, 3 TV. R. 296, 19 
 Jur. 339, V. C. Stuart refused to give costs against the 
 petitioner, although the petition, there being no special 
 circumstances, could not be granted. If the decree or 
 order appealed from is reversed before the appHcation to 
 stay proceedings is heard, there being no longer any pre- 
 sumption of the correctness of such decree or order, the 
 costs of the appKcation will be costs in the cause 
 (Richardson v. Bank of England, 1 Beav. 153), or no 
 costs of it win be given (Pennell v. Roy, 1 W. R. 271). 
 
 K, on the other hand, the motion is rendered necessary iii. Wtere 
 by the respondent's default, he must pay the costs of it, jg rendered 
 if it is successful ( Tampier v. Ingle, 1 N. R. 159). Thus ^""l^f'^y 
 where a bill was dismissed with costs, the plaintiff was, other 
 nevertheless, held entitled to the costs of a second motion g^^*j|j 
 for the production of documents rendered necessary by 
 the defendant's omission of certain documents from his 
 first schedule (Lovell v. Yates, \l L. J. n. s. 158, 6 Jur. 
 479). Again, the costs of a successful motion to make a 
 
 D 2 
 
36 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 co-plaintiff, who had revoked his authority, a defendant, 
 were given against the co-plaintiff {Brown v. Sawer, 
 3 Beav. 598). And the same rule was followed when the 
 opposite party's bad faith had occasioned the application 
 {Re Cattlin, 30 L. T. 110, affirming s.c. 3 Jur. n. s. 33). 
 The party moving will be entitled to his costs, and to 
 bring the motion on for the purpose of obtaining them, 
 although the motion is intercepted by the opposite party's 
 compliance with the order sought {Newton v. Ricketts, 1 1 
 Beav. 164 ; Maw v. Marsden, 4 Jur. 1079 ; Ackerley v. 
 Frodsham, 8 L. J. n. s. 240; In re Minter, 19 Beav. 33). 
 The motion in the case last cited was for a solicitor, after 
 taxation' and payment, to deliver papers, which were deli- 
 vered before the motion was heard ; but in Peasnall v. Coult- 
 hart, 1 Keen, 183 ; and In re Christmas, 19 Beav. 519, it 
 was held that the costs of the common ' four day order ' 
 were payable by the party applying for it. 
 Motion to Under this class of cases come motions to dismiss for 
 wan^of °^ want of prosecution. The defendant, if otherwise in a 
 prosecu- position to move,* may obtain his costs, although the mo- 
 tion cannot be granted, by reason of the plaintiff having, 
 after notice, either filed replication ( Corry v. Curlewis, 8 
 Beav. 606), or obtained an order to amend (Findlay v. 
 Lawrance, 1 1 Jur. 705 f) ; but not if the plaintiff also 
 tenders the costs incurred up to that time {Newton v. 
 Ricketts, 11 Beav. 164). There is no practice as to 2Qs. 
 being the proper tender when the plaintiff files replication 
 after notice of motion to dismiss his bill for want of pro- 
 secution ; but the full cost? 'must be tendered {Hughes v. 
 
 * See 33 Cons. Ord. i: 10. 
 
 f But an order to amend cannot be obtained ex parte after service of 
 notice of motion to dismiss (9 Oons. Ord. r. 12), though it was otherwise 
 under the old practice {Davenport v. Manners, 2 Sim. 514, Blake v. Blake, 
 7 Beav. 514, Lester v. Archdale, 9 Beav. 156) ; and an order of course to 
 amend dates only from its service {Price v. Webb, 2 Ha. 516), and, there- 
 fore, if not served till after, though obtained before, notice of motion to 
 dismiss, it is no answer to the motion, which vriU be granted with costs 
 {Jones V. Earl of Charlemont, 12 Jur. 389). 
 
COSTS OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS, ETC. 37 
 
 Lewis, Johns. 696, where the earlier cases of Attorney- 
 General T. Cooper, 9 Sim. 379; Dartmouth^. Holdsworth, 
 ibid. 383; Piper v. Gittens, 11 Sim. 282; and Wright \. 
 Angle, 2 Ha. 107, are discussed). And the plaintiff may 
 file replication in such case, though he is in contempt 
 {Story v. Official 3Tanager. of the National Insurance 
 Company, 2 N. R. 351). It is no answer, however, to a 
 motion to dismiss for want of prosecution that the plaintiff 
 has not got in the answers of the other defendants, unless 
 he accounts for the delay {Earl of Mornington v. Smith, 
 9 Beav. 251 ; Stinton v. Taylor, 4 Ha. 608; Adair v. 
 Harrington, 2 W. R. 361) ; and though the Court gives 
 him time to get in the other answers, he must pay the 
 costs of the motion ( Taylor v. Rawlinson, 2 Coop. C. C. 
 143). Negotiations with the other defendants do not 
 form sufficient excuse for not getting in their answers 
 {Baldwin v. Damer, 11 Jur. 723; but see Attorney- 
 General V. Nether cote, 7 L. J. n. s. ch. V5). But where 
 the other defendants appear by the same soKcitor as the 
 moving defendant {Winthrop v. Murray, 7 Ha. 150), or 
 the solicitor for the moving defendant is the town agent 
 for the other defendants {Partington v. Baillie, 5 Sim. 
 667), or the solicitor to the defendant moving is acquainted 
 with circumstances showing that the plaintiff has used 
 due diligence {Barber v. Kavanagh, 1 C. P. C. 418), or « 
 fortiori where the moving defendant has purposely kept 
 the non-answering defendant out of the way {Hay v. Farr, 
 ibid. 419), the motion will be refused with costs. A de- 
 fendant moving to dismiss will not lose his costs because 
 he has allowed some time to expire since he was in a 
 position to do so {Athenaum Assurance Company v. 
 Bartlett, 5 W. R. 477); but, on the other hand, the motion 
 will be refused with costs, if notice is given before, though 
 the motion comes on after, the time fixed by the Consoli- 
 dated Orders {Ponsardin v. Stear, 32 Beav. 666).* 
 
 * In Ingle \. Partridge, 9 L. 71 ra. a. 361, the motion was refused, the 
 
 * D 3 
 
38 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Motion to 
 commit for 
 contempt. 
 
 "When 
 costs of 
 contempt 
 and 
 
 may be 
 recovered 
 from the 
 Sheriff. 
 
 iv. Where 
 the motion 
 is irregu- 
 larly made, 
 
 The costs of an application to commit any person for 
 contempt are payable by such person {Pennell v. Roy, 
 1 W. R. 271 ; Tripp v. Bridgewater §• Taunton Canal 
 Company, 3 W. R. 356; Lane v. Sterne, 3 Giff. 629). 
 Such costs, however, must be recovered together with 
 the other costs of the contempt; otherwise, it seems, 
 they cannot be obtained as costs in the cause, and will 
 be lost {Const, v. Ebers, 1 Mad. 530 ; Attorney-General y. 
 Lord Carrington, 6 Beav. 454 ; Landars v. Allen, 6 Sim. 
 619, notwithstanding Anon. 15 Ves. 174). As to the 
 costs of contempt incurred by paupers, see post, ch. vi. 
 sec. ix. If the sheriif having a person in his custody 
 under an attachment for non-payment of a sum of money 
 lets him go at large, he may be ordered on motion to 
 iademnify the party to whom the sum was payable, and 
 to pay the costs of the appKcation {Levett v. Letteney, 
 Beames, App. 5 ; Solly v. Greathead, Beames, App. 6, 
 s. c. Anon. 11 Ves. 170; Moore v. Moore, 25 Beav. 8); 
 but the last case shows that the measure of the sheriff's 
 liability is not the whole sum due, but the amount which 
 would probably have been recovered from the prisoner. 
 And see post, ch. viii. sec. i. part 1. 
 
 Where a motion is made irregularly, the moving party 
 must in general pay the costs of it; but it is not of 
 course that he should do so. In Newton v. Chorlton, 10 
 Ha. App. xxxii,, where short notice of motion had been 
 given without the leave of the Court, V.C. Wood said 
 it was not of course to make the party moving pay the 
 costs, unless any costs had been specially occasioned to 
 the other parties by the irregularity ; and he there gave 
 no costs, following an unreported case of Blakeney v. 
 Dufaur, cor. Sir J. Komilly, M. E. ; and see Steedman 
 V. Poole, 10 Jur. 979, where the defendant served notice 
 of motion to dismiss for want of prosecution for a day not 
 a seal day, and the plaintiff having in the meantune filed 
 
 plaintiff having used due diligence, but not having told the defendant what 
 he was doing, he was not allowed the costs of it. 
 
COSTS OP INTEELOCUTOET APPLICATIONS, ETC. 39 
 
 replication, the Court refused the defendant his costs, but 
 did not make him pay any.* 
 
 The Court can dismiss with costs an application, which 
 it has no jurisdiction to entertain {Re Isaac, 4 My. §• Cr. 
 11). And see Year shy v. Yearsley, 19 Beav. 1, where 
 notice of motion in a Vice-Chancellor's cause was ir- 
 regularly given before the Master of the Rolls ; but in 
 Rashleigh v. Mount, 16 Sim. 390, such a motion was 
 treated as abandoned. So, also, the Court may refuse 
 with costs a motion to enforce an order which it had no 
 jurisdiction to make {In re King, 10 Sim. 605 ; and see 
 Ex parte Winter, 5 Buss. 286). In Pearse v. Cole, 16 
 Jur. 214, a motion by a married woman without a next 
 friend was dismissed with costs to be paid by her solicitor. 
 A party having an objection of form should be prepared 
 to answer the merits, otherwise he will have to pay the 
 costs of the application standing over for him to file affi- 
 davits {Ex parte Bellot, Mad. 261). 
 
 In like manner, the party guilty of the irregularity or is made 
 must pay the costs of a motion to discharge an order ir- ^^^^^^ ^ 
 regularly obtained {Frowd v. Laurence, 1 J. ^ W. 655 ; preTious 
 
 ordftr ir- 
 
 Barleys. Nicholson, 2 Dr. §• W. 86); and notwithstand- regularly 
 ing that an offer is made to pay all the expenses which the obtained. 
 party has been put to in consequence of the irregularity 
 {Frowd V. Laurence, loc. cit.) : so also of a motion to take 
 off the file a document irregularly filed ( Official Liquida- 
 tors of the Southampton §-c. Steamboat Company v. Rawlins, 
 3 N. R. 349), or filed by a solicitor without proper autho- 
 rity (see post, p. 60) ; but not if the party moving raises 
 an issue on which he cannot be beheved {Jerdein v. 
 Bright, 10 W. R. 380). An irregular order will be 
 discharged with costs, although the irregularity occurs 
 through a mistake in the registrar's office, it being the 
 duty of the party procuring the order to see that it is 
 
 * A motion by defendant to restrain an action by co-defendant before 
 decree was refused with costs {Russell v. London, Chatham, and Dover Rail- 
 way Company, 9 L. T. n. s. 14). 
 
 * D 4 
 
40 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Semble, an 
 irregular 
 order is 
 in force 
 until dis- 
 charged. 
 
 Order to 
 
 discharge 
 carries 
 costs, and 
 ground of 
 irregu- 
 larity need 
 not be 
 specified. 
 
 properly drawn up {Landars v. Allen, 6 Sim. 620) ; but 
 see contra, Hibberson v. Cooke, 4 Mad. 248. If an order, 
 though technically regular, has been obtained in breach 
 of good faith, it will also be discharged with costs {Betts 
 V. Barton, 3 Jur. n. s. 154). However, in JJoi/d v. 
 Solicitors Sf General Life Assurance Company, 3 TF. R. 
 640, V. C. Wood said that the Court did not encourage 
 summary applications on a mere slip in practice, without 
 communicating with the other side, and gave no costs in 
 that case. In Stephens v. Workman, 11 W. R. 503, an 
 order to commit for breach of an injunction was dis- 
 charged for a slight irregularity in the form of it, but 
 without costs; but in In re Reynolds, 10 W. R. 709, it 
 was held that an attachment for non-payment of costs 
 would be set aside, if the copy of the taxing master's 
 certificate was not a true copy, however slight the error ; 
 and in that case costs of the application were given, though 
 the error was only in the omission of the word * pounds.' 
 
 It seems the better opinion that an irregular order 
 (although obtained as of course) is in force until it is 
 discharged {Blake v. Blake, 7 Beav. 514 ; Traile v. Bull, 
 1 Beav. 475). In De Geneve v. Hannam, I R. 8f M. 494, 
 however. Lord Lyndhurst, C, expressed his opinion, that 
 an order obtained in defiance of the General Orders was a 
 mere nullity, and that it was unnecessary to set it aside ; 
 and see Tanner v. Dean, 4 Mad. 176 ; Jones v. Barl of 
 Charlemont, 22 Jur. 389. In Richards v. Dudley, 2 Jur. 
 464, it was held that a person was not justified in refusing to 
 obey an order, which was technically defective, without stat- 
 ing his objection to it ; and on motion to cure the defect and 
 enforce the order, he was refused his costs of appearance. 
 An order to discharge an irregular order carries with 
 it the costs of the application to discharge it, though not 
 expressly mentioned in the order ( West v. Smith, 3 Beav. 
 492). The notice of motion need not mention the ground 
 of irregularity, but such omission may be material on 
 the question of costs {Brown \. Robertson, 2 Ph. 173); 
 and see Lambert v. Hill, 1 Dr. 8f W. 74. 
 
COSTS OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS, ETC. 41 
 
 ' "VATien a party gives a notice of motion, and does not Aban- 
 move accordingly, he shall pay to the other side costs to '^°°?'^ 
 be taxed by the taxing master, unless the Court itself 
 shall direct, upon production of the notice of motion, 
 ■what sum shall be paid for costs ' (40 Cons. Ord. r. 23). - 
 
 Under the old order 40^. only was payable as costs of 
 an abandoned motion, unless an affidavit had been filed ; 
 see the cases cited in the note to this Order in Morgan's 
 Ch. Acts and Ords. The following were treated as 
 abandoned motions : — where counsel were not instructed 
 to move on the day for wliich notice of motion was given 
 (i?e Smith, 23 Beav. 284) ; where a motion was brought 
 on and stood over until a day named, and in the interval 
 the plaintiff amended his bill, and a fresh notice was given 
 {^EcclesT. Liverpool Borough Bank, Johns. 402); or where 
 notice of motion was given, but the motion was not 
 brought on before amendment (^London ^ Blachwall 
 Ry. Co. V. Limehouse Board of Works, 3 K. ^ J. 123); 
 where, pending an appeal against an order allowing a 
 demurrer, the plaintiff gave notice of motion to restrain 
 the defendants from parting with certain funds, and the 
 order was affirmed before the motion came on (Attorney- 
 General v. Mayor of Norwich, 2 My. ^ C . 406, 431) ; a 
 motion set down in the Lords Justices' paper, and not 
 made when called on (Turner v. Turner, 15 Jur. 1165); 
 and in the last case the motion was struck out of the 
 paper. In Dugdale v. Johnson, 5 Ha. 92, it was held that 
 a motion once opened could not be treated as an aban- 
 doned motion, but if it stood over, and no further steps 
 were taken, it must be treated as a motion refused ; but 
 see contra, Gorely v. Gorely, 25 Beav. 234 ; Eccles v. 
 Liverpool Borough Bank, loc. cit. In Felkin v. Lewis, 
 11 W. R. 981, where a motion for an injunction stood 
 over from time to time on an undertaking, which was 
 ultimately discharged on defendants doing what they 
 had professed their intention to do, the Court held it was 
 not an abandoned motion, and reserved the costs till the 
 hearing. Where a plaintiff gave notice of a motion and 
 
42 COSTS OP A SUIT GENEEALLT. 
 
 died, and his executors revived but did not proceed with 
 the motion, it was held not to be an abandoned motion 
 ( Warner v. Armstrong, 4 Sim. 140) ; and on the bill in 
 the same suit being dismissed with costs, the defendants 
 were not allowed their costs of that motion {Lewis v. 
 Armstrong, 3 My. ^ Cr. 70). The costs of an abandoned 
 motion must be applied for on the next seal after that for 
 which notice is given ( Woodcock v. Oxford, Worcester §• 
 Wolverhampton Ry. Co., 17 Jur. 33), and it is too late to 
 apply for them at the hearing, and certainly on speaking 
 to minutes {JEccles v. Liverpool Borough Bank, loc. cit.); 
 and where defendant dismisses a bill for want of prosecu- 
 tion, without making a motion of which he has given notice, 
 the plaintiff cannot afterwards obtain the costs of the 
 motion as abandoned (^Farquharson v. Pitcher, 4 Buss. 
 510). To obtain the costs of an abandoned motion, the 
 notice must be mentioned to the Court, and produced 
 to the registrar {Withey v. Haigh,2> Mad. 437). A 
 person in contempt cannot apply for the costs of an 
 abandoned motion {Ellis v. Walmesley, 4 L. J. ch. 461), 
 and a motion cannot be renewed until the costs of an 
 abandoned motion for the same purpose are paid (Bell- 
 chamber V. Giani, 3 Mad. 550, and s,e,e,post, ch. viii. sec. i.). 
 As to the costs of a summons in chambers abandoned, 
 see post, sec. ix. 
 
 Aban- So, if a petitioner does not appear, the respondent is 
 
 petition. entitled to costs on producing his own affidavit of having 
 been served {Ex parte Garth, 2 G. Sf J. 392). 
 
 Motion In Charlesworth v. Garsted, 2 N. R. 568, Sir J. 
 
 iprojorm . -^q^^^^j^ -^ B,_^ \ie\di. that a party moving to vary the 
 Chief Clerk's certificate on a point which had been 
 brought before the Judge personally in Chambers (in 
 which case no further argument will be heard, York §• 
 North Midland Ry. Co. v. Hudson, 18 Beav. 70, 73) 
 should inform the other side that the motion is only pro 
 forma to found an appeal upon, otherwise he must pay 
 the full costs of the motion. 
 
COSTS Off INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS, ETC. 43 
 
 There has been a curious fluctuation of opinion as to Costs of 
 the riffht of a person served with a notice of motion or P™'i<?f 
 
 , . . . . . served 
 
 petition, but having no interest, and appearing, to his costs with notice 
 of appearance. The following are the cases arranged orpetit^Jn 
 as far as possible chronologically: — (1) Templeman v. andap- 
 Warrington{M. R., Dec. 1819), 1 J. &>• W. 377 n.; Garey though' 
 Y.jrhittingham, T. Sc R. 405 ; and JVormally. Williamson, ^a™g bo 
 
 ■, , . -, interest. 
 
 2 Jur. 440 ; where the costs were disallowed. In Garey 
 V. Whittingham, Sir T. Plumer, M. E.., said : ' If a per- 
 son is served whose appearance is not necessary, and he 
 chooses to appear merely to ask for costs, it is the estab- 
 lished practice here not to give him his costs.' (2) Heneage 
 V. Aihin, I J. 8f W. 2,11 ; Craicshay v. Thornton, 2 3Iy. 
 §• Cr. 24 ; Bamford v. IVatts, 2 Beav. 202 ; Bruce v. 
 Kinloch, 11 Beav. 432 ; Rowley v. Adams, 16 Beav. 312 ; 
 where the costs were allowed. InCrawshay y. Thornton, 
 Lord Cottenham, C, said: 'It was now the settled prac- 
 tice of the Court, that when a petition was served upon 
 unnecessary parties who appeared, they were entitled to 
 their costs.' In Bamford v. TVatts (which was a strong 
 case, because the party had been told that his costs would 
 be objected to if he appeared), Lord Langdale, M. K., said 
 that the rule of the Court had been very different since 
 the time of Sir T. Plumer, and added : ' It is now settled, 
 that where a party is served with a petition or motion, 
 and he appears and makes no opposition, he will, not- 
 withstanding, be considered as entitled to appear, and if 
 there has been no improper conduct on his part, to have 
 the costs of his appearance.' The rule so laid down by 
 Lord Langdale was recognised and approved by Sir 
 E. Sugden, L. C, in Tabuteau v. Warhurton, 4 Dr. §• W. 
 267. (3) Major v. Major, 13 Jur. 1 (but see Bruce v. 
 Kinloch, loc. cit.) ; Barton v. Lautour, 18 Beav. 526 ; In 
 re Justices of Coventry, 19 Beav. 158 ; In re Hertford 
 Charities {cor. Lord St. Leonard's, C), 19 Beav. 518, n. ; 
 Day v. Croft, 19 Beav. 518 ; In re Birch's Will, 2 K Sf J. 
 369 • I^x parte Churchill, 1 N. R., 140 ; where the costs 
 
44 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 were disallowed. In re Birch's Will, Vice.-Chan. Wood 
 reluctantly followed Day v. Croft, loc. cit. In Seton, 
 p. 94, it is said that ' the practice now is as stated in 
 Garey v. Whittingham, that a person appearing merely 
 to ask for his costs will not be allowed them. In Ex 
 parte QueerHs Coll. Cambridge, 4 Jur. n. s. 19, 6 W. R, 9, 
 Vice-Chan. Stuart allowed their costs to the Copyhold 
 Commissioners, in whose names the fund was standing, 
 though when served with the petition they were told not 
 to appear, and his Honour drew a distinction between 
 petitions in a matter and a cause ; sed qu. In Strong v. 
 Strong, 6 W. R. 455, also, it was held that a party, if 
 otherwise entitled, does not lose his costs of appearance 
 because he is told not to appear ; and see Bamford v. 
 Watts, loc. cit. 
 Persons The preceding cases also seem to show that no distinc- 
 
 unneces- ^ion is in general made between persons properly served, 
 served. but having no interest which obliges them to appear, and 
 persons unnecessarily served. In Herman v. Dunbar, 
 23 Beav. 312, a petition to discharge a receiver was 
 served on the receiver, who appeared, but being a mere 
 officer of the Court (^Parker v. Dunn, 8 Beav. 497) was 
 refused his costs. But in In re Third Burnt Tree 
 Building Society, 12 Jur. 595, the petitioner had to 
 pay the costs of a party unnecessarily served; but 
 in that case the payment of the costs of the application 
 was wrongly asked against the party. The application 
 for substituted service being properly made ex parte, the 
 plaintiff in Reed v. Barton, i W. R. 792, was ordered to 
 pay the costs of the defendant's solicitor, whom he had • 
 served. As to the costs of persons unnecessarily served 
 vdth a petition of appeal, see post, sec. x. In appli- 
 cations for transfer to the credit of a cause of purchase 
 money paid into Court by a public company, in 
 future it will not be necessary to serve all the parties to 
 the suit (per V. C. Wood, Eden v. Thompson, 4 N. R. 
 87) ; though the practice has hitherto been to do so (ibid.) 
 
COSTS OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS, ETC. 45 
 
 A purchaser who has paid his money into Court, but PurchaBer 
 has not got his conveyance, is entitled to appear, and will ^motkm 
 receive his costs of appearance, when the moneyis dealtwith to deal 
 (A'o&Ze V. Stoir, 30 Bear. 272), secus, if he has got his con- purchase- 
 vcyauce (Barton v. Lautour, 18 Beav. 526). ' The prac- ^ouey. 
 tice is to draw up the order with the purchaser's consent, 
 in which case he is entitled to his costs of appearance, or 
 on proper evidence that he has been served with notice, 
 and has got his conveyance ' (Noble v. Stow, lac. cit.). 
 
 A party properly served -with, and appearing on, a Persons 
 petition does not forfeit his right to costs, because his ^nd 
 counsel raises an unsuccessful opposition to the prayer opposing. 
 (Ej- parte Stevens, 2 Ph. 771); but if a person, by setting 
 up a groundless claim previous to the petition being pre- 
 sented, renders it necessary that he should be served, he 
 wiU not get his costs (Re Shrewsbury School, 1 Mac. 8f 
 G. 85) ; and see Re Bai-ry's Trusts, 12 Jur. 615. 
 
 A person not served, but appearing, will not get his Persons 
 costs (Bennett v. Biddies, 10 Jur. 534); secus, if his solicitor \,ut 
 appears for him at the express request of the petitioners, i^ppearuig- 
 and the petition is dismissed ^vith costs (Shaw v. Forrest, 
 20 Beav. 249). 
 
 In Kilminster v. Noel, 12 Beav. 246, a petition having Petition 
 been served on the soHcitor for two parties in the cause, solicitor 
 -without any intimation for which party it was intended, for ^y° 
 
 nil- 11 parties, 
 
 he appeared for both and was allowed his costs, though ^ho 
 
 the appearance of one only was necessary. fra bo7k 
 
 If the notice of motion embraces more than one object, jiotion ^j. 
 
 and the party moving fails in the principal part of the several 
 
 motion, he must pay the full costs of the motion (Sturch failing in 
 
 V. Young, 5 Beav. 557 ; Lancashire v. Lancashire, 9 Beav. ^^^J^^J 
 
 130). 
 
 The costs of an interlocutory application entitled in Notice of 
 
 several causes may be set off in one, if such appHcation ^°?J™ j^^ 
 
 related wholly to the matters in that cause, but not other- several 
 
 wise (Jenner v. Morris,2 N. R. 479, 11 W. R. 943); and =^"'''- 
 see further, as to set-ofF for costs, post, sec. viii. 
 
46 COSTS OF A SUIT GENEUALLT. 
 
 Payment Upon interlocutory applications, the Court may direct 
 
 su ^^^ payment of a sum in gross in lieu of taxed costs (40 Cons. 
 
 lieu of Ord. r. 37). V. C. Wood, however, is reported in The Lon- 
 
 cos s. ^^^ ^ Blackmail Railway Company v. Limehouse Board 
 
 of Works, 26 L. J. 170, to have said that the Coiirt 
 
 would not act on this rule, unless the parties were poor 
 
 and anxious to put an end to the matter ; hut see ex. gr. 
 
 YearsleyY. Yearsley, 19 Beav. 1 ; Dahyns v. Garratt, 4 
 
 Jur. n. s. 579. In Gover v. Stilwell, 21 Beav. 182, Sir 
 
 J. Eomilly, M. R. said an inflexible rule adopted by him 
 
 on petitions for transfer of funds standing to a separate 
 
 account, and in which no person other than the petitioner 
 
 was interested, was to allow £10 to the solicitor for his 
 
 costs without taxation ; ' and the registrars have his 
 
 Honour's directions to insert that sum in all such cases ' 
 
 {Seton, 94). 
 
 rp If two motions are made {Hawke v. Kemp, 3 Beav. 288), 
 
 motions or two petitions presented {B.e Wortham, 4 De G. §• S. 
 
 tfons when ^20), where the objects sought might have been attained 
 
 only one \,y qt^q motion or petition, the party moving, or the 
 
 necessary. . . -n i i j. ./ . i i 
 
 petitioner, will have to pay the extra costs occasioned by 
 
 XJnneces- such proceeding. All costs occasioned by unnecessary 
 
 evidence evidence must be paid by the party offering it {Littlewood 
 
 andirrele- v. Collins, 1 N. R. 457, U TV. R. 387); and where the 
 
 matter. petition of a married woman by her next friend for the 
 
 appointment of new trustees contained personal and 
 
 irrelevant charges against the petitioner's husband, the 
 
 next friend was ordered to pay so much of the costs on 
 
 both sides as were occasioned by the introduction of such 
 
 charges {Re mils Trusts, 3 N. R. 107). 
 
 Costs of A person obtaining a stop order on a fund in Court is 
 
 obtammg ti, , t . n i r-i 
 
 a, stop uable, ' at the discretion of the Court or the Judge at 
 
 funds in Chambers, as the case may be, to pay any costs, charges. 
 
 Court, or expenses which, by reason of any such order having 
 
 been obtained, shall be occasioned to any party to the 
 
 cause or matter, or any person interested in any such 
 
 stocks, funds, &c.' (26 Cons. Ord. r. 1). Persons having 
 
DISPOSAL OF COSTS OF THE SUIT BEFORE HEARING. 47 
 
 claims on funds in Court are not entitled, under all 
 circiunstances, to the costs of obtaining a stop order 
 {Grimsb2/ v. JVehster, 8 W. R. 725), but such costs were 
 allowed iu that case; and see Edwards v. Grove, 29 
 L. J. ch. 839. But the mortgagee of a fund iu 
 Court, empowered by his mortgage deed to apply for a 
 stop order, is entitled to the costs of his so doing ( Waddi- 
 love V. Taylor, 6 Ha. 307); he must, however, ask 
 specially for them, or they mU not be allowed by the 
 taxing master under the common, order to tax the 
 mortgagee's costs (ibid.). An incumbrancer petitioning 
 for a stop order, after notice that a petition had been 
 presented for payment out of the fund, was not allowed 
 his costs {Hoole v. Roberts, 12 Jur. 108).* As to the and a 
 costs of obtaining a charging order under the 1 & 2 Vict. 0^^^^^"^ 
 c. 1 10, on stock standing in the name of a party to a suit, under i & 
 see Stanley \. Bond, 8 Beav. 50. ^. yvo. 
 
 As to the costs of petitions for the payment of money 
 out of Court, or the dividends on funds in Court, see 
 'The Trustee KeHef Act' {post, ch. v.); and as to 
 costs of petitions under particular Acts of Parliament, 
 see post, ch. v. generally. 
 
 Sectiox VI. — Where the Costs of the Suit are disposed 
 ,of on Interlocutory Application. 
 
 The plaintiff may dismiss his own bill without costs Dismissal 
 against any defendant at any time before that defendant's ^jg^^ "'^^ 
 appearance. The rule extends to a supplemental bill, as i. Before 
 well as an original bill ( Thompson v. Thompson, 7 Beav. ance^n ith- 
 351). But the plaintiff will not be allowed to exercise out costs. 
 that right, when his doing so involves a breach of good 
 faith towards the defendant {Betts v. Barton, 3 Jur. n. s. 
 154). 
 
 * A stop order may now be obtained in Chambers, except when the 
 money has been paid in under the Trustee Relief Act, see 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 
 898. 
 
48 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 ii. After 
 appear- 
 ance, and 
 before 
 hearing ; 
 by order 
 of course, 
 ■with costs. 
 
 Stat. 4 
 Ann. u. 16, 
 B. 23. 
 
 Qu. Whe- 
 ther after a 
 
 demurrer 
 to whole 
 biU 
 allowed. 
 
 In a cross 
 suit. 
 
 In former times, it appears to have been the practice, 
 that the plaintiff might dismiss his own bill, with 20s. 
 costs, at any time after appearance, and before the hear- 
 ing. That practice, however, was disapproved of by 
 Lord Keeper North, in Anon. 1 Vern. 116 ; and by Stat. 
 4 Anne, c. 16, s. 23 it was enacted, ' that upon the 
 plaintiff dismissing his own bill, or the defendants dis- 
 missing the same for want of prosecution, the plaintiff in 
 such suit shall pay to the defendant or defendants his or 
 their full costs to be taxed by a master.' It is now the 
 rule that the plaintiff may dismiss his own bill with full 
 costs, by an order of course, at any time before the cause 
 has been actually heard ( Carrington v. Holly, 1 Dick. 280, 
 where an issue had been directed, but before verdict ; 
 Locke V. Nash, 2 Mad. Ch. Pr. 389 ; Curtis v. Lloyd, 4 
 My. §• C. 194). In the case last cited, the cause was actu- 
 ally called on, and stood over till the next day for the 
 convenience of the plaintiff's counsel ; on the following 
 morning the plaintiff obtained the common order for dis- 
 missal with costs, and Lord Cottenham held that he was 
 entitled to it. However, after the cause is set down for 
 hearing, dismissal on the plaintiff's own application is now 
 made (by 23 C. O. r. 13) equivalent to dismissal on the 
 merits, and may be pleaded in bar to another suit for the 
 same matter. In Cooper v. Lewis, 2 Ph. 178, it was 
 doubted whether a plaintiff could dismiss his own bill 
 with costs after an order allowing a general demurrer, and 
 it was held that, at any rate, an ex parte application for 
 that purpose was irregular, if the fact of the' allowance of 
 the demurrer was suppressed. In Booth v. Leycester, 1 
 Keen, 247, it was held that a plaintiff in a cross suit, where 
 it had been agreed that the evidence in such suit should 
 be read in the other, could not dismiss his bill by the 
 common order. After dismissal before the hearing of an 
 original bill, the Court had no jurisdiction, under the 
 41st Order of August 1841, to give the defendant 
 the costs of a cross bill for discovery, filed by him 
 
DISPOSAL OF COSTS OF THE SUIT BEFORE HEARING. 49 
 
 {IVestfieU V. Shipwith, 1 Ph. 277); and see Penny r. 
 JJ'attg, 17 Sim. 45. But a co-plaintiff cannot dismiss the Co-plam- 
 bill as to himself with costs, unless vnth the consent of the ^'if^fg"""* 
 other co-plaintiffs, or on terms framed so as not to injure bill as to 
 them {Holkirk y. HolMrk, 4 Mad. 50), though the con- ^Xtt 
 trary was held in Langdale v. Langdale, 13 Ves. 167, on (consent 
 the authority of Batheio \. Needham, Prac. Reg. 179. plaintiffs. 
 In IJlnthrop v. Murray, 7 Ha. 152, V. C. Wigram said 
 that Langdale v. Langdale had not been followed, and re- 
 fused to allow a co-plaintiff to withdraw from the suit. 
 A sole-plaintiff may dismiss his own bill with costs, though A sole 
 he sues on behalf of others as well as himself (Manton v. P''?'™tiff 
 
 suing on 
 
 Roe, 14 Sim. 352); and an infant plaintiff may, on motion behalf of 
 
 by himself, by his next friend in the cause, dismiss any and Others 
 
 defendant with costs, though, if the Court considers the ™.ay 
 defendant ought never to have been made a party, it will ^ 
 
 reserve the consideration of how such costs ouffht ulti- infant. 
 
 "to 
 
 mately to be borne, as between the plaintiff and his next 
 fidend, till the hearing {Pearce v. Pearce, 9 Ves. 548). 
 The circumstance of a plaintiff suing in forma pauperis Pauper 
 does not entitle him to dismiss his own bill by ex parte ™^y .°°' 
 
 '' ^ dismias 
 
 application without costs (^Pearson v. Belcher, 3 Bro. C. ex parte 
 C.87; Parkinson v. Hanhury, 4 De G. M. §• G. 508). ^^°^^ 
 
 If a defendant properly disclaims by his answer all Dis- 
 interest in the subject of the suit, the plaintiff may, on jg''£™j"|j 
 motion, dismiss him with costs to be paid by the plaintiff, 
 but -ivithout prejudice to the question by whom they are 
 ultimately to be borne {Bayly v. Lambert, 5 Ha. 178 ; 
 Styles V. Shipton, 3 W. R. 158, 24 L. T. 207) ; but see 
 contra, Wigginton v. Parliinson {cor. Y. C. Shadwell), 12 
 Jut. 89. And the order may be made without service on 
 the other defendants {Bayly v. Lambert, loc. cit. ; Styles 
 V. Shipton, loc. cit. ; Collis v. Collis, 14 L. J. n. s. ch. 56). 
 And see further as to the costs of disclaiming defendants, 
 post, pp. 80, seq. But a plaintiff cannot dismiss his bill 
 as to certain defendants, when he has elected to sue the 
 defendants jointly {Fussell v. Elwin, 7 Ha. 29). 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GEKEKALLT, 
 
 Dismissal 
 ■without 
 costs "before 
 hearing. 
 
 The Court 
 has juris- 
 diction 
 notwith- 
 standing 
 Stat. 4, 
 Ann. e. 16. 
 
 Cases 
 where 
 Court will 
 dismiss a 
 bill with- 
 out costs 
 before the 
 hearing, 
 on applica- 
 tion of 
 plaintiff. 
 
 It seems to have been at one time doubted whether, 
 after Stat. 4 Anne, c. 16, s. 23, the Court had jurisdiction 
 to dismiss a bill without costs before the hearing, unless 
 by consent {Fidelle v. Evans, 1 Bro. C. C. 267, s. c. 1 Cox 
 27 ; Anon. 1 Ves. junr. 140 ; Dixon v. Parkes, ibid. 402) ; 
 and see Knox v. Brown, 2 Bro. C. C. 184, s. c. 1 Cox 
 359. But that jurisdiction is now established {Van 
 Sandau v. Moore, 1 Russ. 469 ; Snelling v. Haddocks, 
 3 Yo. Sf Coll. 232) ; and it is held that the statute of 
 Anne does not apply to a special • application (per L. J. 
 Turner in Lister v. Leather, I De G. ^ J. B61) ; hut 
 the rules of the Court as to allowing a plaintiff to dismiss 
 his bill without costs ought not to be extended {ibid.). 
 The following are the principal cases in which the 
 jurisdiction has been exercised. 
 
 The Court will, on motion by plaintiff, dismiss a bill 
 without costs in pursuance of an agreement come to at 
 the trial of an action at law {Tehbutt v. Potter, 4 Ha. 
 164) contrary to the opinion intimated in Fidelle v. Evans, 
 loc. cit. So where the defendant has absconded, or is 
 insolvent, and the plaintiff has obtained the substantial 
 object of the suit {Pinfold v. Pinfold, 9 Ha., app. xiv.); 
 or the defendant by his own act has destroyed the subject 
 matter of the suit and rendered its further prosecution 
 useless {Knox v. Brown, loc. cit. ; and see Blanshard v. 
 Hreiv. 10 Sim. 240; Goodday v. Sleigh, 3 W. R. 87); 
 but not if the plaintiff before instituting the suit knew of 
 the defendant's embarrassed circumstances {Snelling v. 
 Maddocks, loc. cit.) ; or in case of a pardonable mistake as 
 to fact, see Broughton v. Lashmere {cor. Lord Cotten- 
 ham, C, cited in Robinson v. Rosher, I Y. 8f C. C. C. 7) 
 where the plaintiff had obtained administration in igno- 
 rance of the existence of a will since discovered ; or even 
 as to law, as where the bill is filed on the authority of a 
 case which, in the course of the proceedings, is overruled 
 {Robinson v. Rosher, loc. cit. ; Sutton Harbour Company 
 V. Hichens, 1 De G. M. ^ G. 167 ; Lancashire 8f York- 
 
DISPOSAL OF COSTS OF THE SUIT BEFORE HEARING. 51 
 
 shire Baihvo}/ Company v. Ecans, 14 Beav. 529); or 
 where the plaintift" has been misled by the act or sugges- 
 tion of the Court {Lister v. Leather, he. cit.) ; and lastly, 
 see Llsei/ v. Adams, 3 ^V. R. 696, where, although the suit 
 could not be maintained, the defendant had confessedly 
 been guilty of gross fraud. But a plaintiff cannot dismiss 
 his bill as to some defendants without costs after it has 
 been dismissed as to others with costs for want of prose- 
 cution ( Troicard v. Attioood, 27 Beav. 85). 
 
 It is doubtful whether a bill can be dismissed with The Court 
 costs to be paid by a defendant ; * and where the costs of dispose of 
 a suit are ordered to be paid by a defendant on inter- '|"^ <^°!*^ °^ 
 
 1 1--1CT1 1- the suit 
 
 locutory application beiore decree, the common order is on inter- 
 to stay all further proceedino-g. In Sivell v. Abraham, 8 l°™tory 
 Beav. 598, Lord Langdale, ~M. R., threw out a dictum, tion, or 
 that where the plaintiff's demand has been satisfied, he defendant 
 should not brins: the suit to a hearing, but should make '° P^y 
 
 them 
 
 an application to the Court to stay proceedings and unless he 
 dispose of the costs; and in Hennet v. Luard, 12 Beav. '^^^^^^ 
 479, the same Judge adhered to the opinion expressed should be 
 bv him in Sivell v. Abraham. It has accordingly been ^f '^^°^^ 
 held by some Judges, that the Court would, on motion 
 or petition by the plaintiff under such circumstances, 
 enter into the merits of the cause for the purpose of 
 detei-mining the question of costs, and would, in a proper 
 case, make the defendant pay the costs of the suit (see 
 North V. Great Northern Railway Company, 2 Giff. 64 ; 
 Nicholls V. Elf or d, 5 Jur. n. s, 264 ; Tompson v. Knight^ 
 7 Jur. n. s. 704, 9 W. R. 780; WUde v. WUde, 10 
 W. R. 368); while on the other hand, Y. C. Knight 
 Bruce in Langham v. Great Northern Railway Com- 
 pany, I Be G. Sj- S. 503, and M'Naughtan v. Hasher, 
 12 Jur. 957, expressly refused to follow that practice; 
 and it seems to have been disapproved of by Sir J. 
 Romilly, M. R., in Burgess v. Hill, 26 Beav. 244 (but 
 
 » See the cases on this point collected, post, p. 67. 
 E 2 
 
52 COSTS OP A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 see Troivard v. Attioood, 27 Beav. 85), and by V. C. 
 Kindersley in Wallis v. WallisiA, Dreiv.4:58. It has now 
 been decided by the Lords Justices ( Wilde v. TVilde, 10 
 fV. R. 503, overruling s. c. ibid. 368), that the Court will 
 not, on motion by plaintiff to stay proceedings, make the 
 defendant pay the costs of the suit, unless by consent. 
 L. J. Turner there says : ' The case of Sivell v. Abrahams 
 appears to have been misunderstood. All that was there 
 decided was, that a plaintiff might apply to the Court to 
 stay the proceedings, and order the defendant to pay the 
 costs of the suit, and that if the defendant made no 
 objection the suit might be disposed of in that way ; but 
 here the defendant objects to that course.' This decision 
 has been (reluctantly) followed by V. C. Wood in Morgan 
 V. Great Eastern Railway Company, I H. 8f M. 78 ; but 
 it seems, nevertheless, that the omission of the plaintiff to 
 apply for the defendant's consent to having the costs dis- 
 posed of on an interlocutory application, where that 
 question is the only one left in the cause, may preclude 
 him from having the extra costs occasioned by going on 
 to a hearing (ibid.); see also Ventilation §• Sanitary Im- 
 provement Company v. Edelsten, 2 JV. R. 53, where V. C. 
 Stuart refused the motion, but made the costs of it costs 
 in the cause, because it was a well-meant endeavour to 
 put an end to useless litigation. 
 Semhle the It may, therefore, now be considered as settled that the 
 not"unTess Court will not. Under any circumstances, on interlocutory 
 by consent, application, make the defendants pay the costs of the suit, 
 the merits unless they consent to have the costs so disposed of. And 
 of the suit from a comparison of the cases where the Court has 
 locntory allowed the plaintiff to dismiss his own bill without costs, 
 tfon'with *^® principle would seem to be that the Court, in such 
 reference cases, will not go into the merits of the suit, but decides 
 costs." °^ grounds extrinsic to the merits ; see on this point the 
 
 instructive judgment of V. C. Kindersley in Wallis v. 
 Wallis, 4 Drew. 458 ; andcf. Andrews v. Morgan, 3 W. R. 
 145 : but see, on the other hand, Elsey v. Adams, he. cit. 
 
DISPOSAL OF COSTS OF THE SUIT BEFORE HEARING. 53 
 
 An exception to this rule is made in the case of suits Exception. 
 for a receiver pending litigation in the Ecclesiastical Suits for a 
 Court (or now in the Court of Probate) which are never pending 
 brouofht to a hearing and cannot be dismissed for want of litigiition 
 
 • / < 7 ^ as to 
 
 prosecution {^Anderson v. Gutchard, 9 Ha. 275 ; Edwards probate. 
 V. Edwards, 17 Jiir. 826 ; Barton v. Eock, 22 Beav. 81). 
 In such suits the Court will, bn motion, dispose of the 
 costs of the suit ; and semhle the costs in this Court will 
 follow the disposition of the costs in the Ecclesiastical 
 Court (^Barton v. Rock, loc. cit.\ The costs of the other Costs of 
 suits which are never brought to a hearing, such as suits ^jjieh^are^ 
 for discovery ( IVoodcock v. Kinq, 1 Ath. 286 ; Rhodes v. i^ever 
 
 ,- T^ T> 7 !-. brought 
 
 Hayne, 9 Jur. 1 / 5 ; South Eastern Railway Company v. to a 
 
 Submarine Telegraph Company, 17 Jur. 1044), and suits lif^armg. 
 to perpetuate testimony (^Wright v. Tatham, 2 Sim. 459; 
 Longman v. Barham, ibid. n. ; Beavan v. Carpenter, 11 
 Sim. 22 ; Edwards v. Edwards, 22 L. J. ch. 1055) are 
 paid by the plaintiff unless the defendant has examined 
 witnesses in chief, and may be obtained by the defendant 
 by an order of course (Foulds v. Midgley, I V. Sf B. 138). 
 See further on this point post, ch. iv. sec. v. An exception Inter- 
 seems also to be made in interpleading suits, when all gj^/"^ 
 claims but one are A\-ithdrawn {post, ch. iv. sec. vii.). 
 
 An infant plaintiff may move by a person, not a party Infant 
 to the cause, as his next friend for the purpose of the ^!^y"^\s. 
 application, to have a suit improperly instituted dismissed miss a^bill 
 with costs against the next friend in the suit (Guy v. Guy, against 
 2 Beav. 460). But it seems that he cannot, after coming j^'?,^'|f^ 
 of ao-e, move to dismiss the bUl with costs against the the cause. 
 next friend {Anon. 4 Mad. 461); and see further as to 
 costs of infants, post, ch. \i. 
 
 The dismissal of a bill for want of prosecution is with Dismissal 
 costs {Stat. 4 Ann. c. 16, s. 23), and the Court will not, "Z^'f''" 
 on motion for that purpose, enter into the merits as to j;^^"^^^^^"* 
 whether the dismissal should be with or without costs ; cution : — 
 but the order depends solely on the conduct of the with costs, 
 plaintiff with regard to the prosecution of the suit {Stagg 
 
54 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 although 
 defendant 
 a hank- 
 I'upt or 
 insolvent : 
 
 but defen- 
 dant's 
 motion 
 may he 
 allowed 
 to stand 
 over for 
 plaintiff 
 to move to 
 dismiss, 
 without 
 costs. 
 
 Cases the 
 other way. 
 
 V. Knowles, 3 Ha. 241 ; Troward v. Attioood, 27 Beav. 
 85 ; Lancashire §• YorksMie Railway Company v. Evans, 
 14 Beav. 529). In the last case, the suit was one in 
 which if brought to a hearing the Court would not, 
 according to decided cases, give costs, and the plaintiff 
 had offered to dismiss his bill without costs. The dis- 
 missal will be with costs, though nothing is said as 
 to costs in the usual previous order on the plaintiff 
 to speed, or in default to be dismissed {Stephenson 
 V. Mackay, 24 Beav. 252). The circumstance of the 
 defendant's having, since the institution of the suit, 
 become a bankrupt, or taken the benefit of the old 
 Insolvent Debtors' Act, does not prevent his dismissing 
 the bill with costs, subject to the usual order to speed 
 {Monteith v. Taylor, 9 Ves. 615 ; Rhode v. Spear, 4: Mad. 
 61 ; Blachmore v. Smith, 1 Mac. §• G. 80 ; Robson v. 
 Earl of Devon, 3 Sm. §• G. 227 ; Lever v. Heritage, 26 
 Beav. 560). The contrary case of Blanshard v. Drew, 
 10 Sim. 240, may now, therefore, be considered as over- 
 ruled. But although the Court will not dismiss without 
 costs on the defendant's motion, it may direct the 
 defendant's mo I ion to stand over with liberty for the 
 plaintiff to move to dismiss his own bill without costs, and 
 file affidavits in support of such motion ; and on the 
 plaintiff's application the Court may dismiss the bill with- 
 out costs {Pinfold v. Pinfold, 9 Ha. app. xiv. ; Goodday 
 V. Sleigh, Z W. R. 87). However, in Kemball\. Walduck, 
 1 Sm. 8f G. app. xxvii., V. C. Stuart made an order for 
 dismissal without costs, on the defendant's application to 
 dismiss in the usual way, on the grounds of the defendant's 
 great delay in moving ; and he is reported to have said 
 that, ' No case made it imperative on the Court, upon the 
 defendant's motion for dismissing the bill for want of 
 prosecution, to make it an integral part of the order that 
 the defendant should get her costs.' It is submitted, 
 however, that this case cannot be supported, and that the 
 Stat. 4 Ann. c. 16, s. 23, and the cases which have been 
 
DISPOSAL OF COSTS OF THE SUIT BEFORE HEARING. 55 
 
 cited show that the practice is as stated above. In 
 Findlay v. Laurence, 2 Be G. ^- S. 303, the bill apiDears 
 to have been dismissed without costs on an undertakinar 
 (in effect) not to file a fresh bill. That case, therefore, 
 cannot be treated as an authority in support of Kemhall 
 \. TValduck. For the form of the order, where plaintiff As to suits 
 does not proceed, in the case of suits to perpetuate ^^^^^ ™'^ 
 testimony, and other suits which are not brought to a brought to 
 hearing, and therefore cannot be dismissed for want of 
 prosecution, see Bcavan v. Carpenter, 11 Sim. 22. A Bill dis- 
 bill dismissed for want of prosecution may be restored wantofpro- 
 iinder special circumstances (Jackson v. Purnell, 16 Ves. secution 
 
 rsstorpQ. 
 
 204) ; but will not be so for the mere purpose of agitating but not ' 
 the question of costs (Ilannam v. South London Water- ^°^ V^^"'V°^'^ 
 
 ^ ^ of diecuss- 
 
 tcorks Comjpany, 2 Mer. 63). ing costs. 
 
 T\"here, by a former order in the suit, the plaintiff has ii. Where 
 
 been ordered to do some act, and proceedings are stayed P^^^tiff 
 
 ^ J- -^ •' has made 
 
 in the meanwhile, and the plaintiff makes default or is in default in 
 contempt, .the defendant or defendants at whose instance order'rf ^" 
 the former order was obtained, may obtain a further order t'^® 
 that the plaintiff do the act within a limited time, or his with costs. 
 bill be dismissed with costs : as where the plaintiff makes 
 default in giving security for costs ( Giddings v. Giddings, 
 ■ 10 Beav. 29, and the cases cited ante, p. 17) ; or where jDro- 
 ceedings are stayed till the costs of a former suit for the 
 same matter are paid (Lautour v. Holcomhe, 1 1 Beav. 624 ; 
 but see contra, Futvoye v. Kennard, 2 Giff. 533) ; or where 
 a motion for an injunction stood over with liberty for the 
 plaintiff to bring an action, and no action has been 
 brought (5eZZ V. Bell, 14 Jur. 1129); or where plaintiff 
 has made default in the production of a document in his 
 possession, the Court having given the defendants a 
 limited time to answer after the production of it {Princess 
 of Wales V. Earl of Liverpool, 3 Swans. 567). If there 
 has been great delay, an immediate order may be made 
 for the dismissal of the bill, as in Lautour v. Holcomhe, 
 loc. cit. 
 
56 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 iii. Where ' Wliere a Suit abates by the death of a sole plaintiff, 
 by death or t^^ Court, upon motion of any defendant made on notice 
 marriage served On the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff/ 
 plaintiff:— may order that such legal representative do revive the 
 ^sts°"' suit within a limited time, or that the bill be dismissed ' 
 (32 Cons. Ord. r. 4). 
 
 Where an order for dismissal is made under this rule, it 
 is without costs {Hill v. Gaunt, 9 fV. B. 68). In JPrice 
 V. Berrington, 11 Beav. 90, Lord Langdale, M.E,., made 
 an order under this rule after decree, staying all proceed- 
 ings and dissolving an injunction ; but in Mills v. Dudgeon, 
 1 W. R. 514, V. C. Kindersley declined to follow that 
 case. As to the practice before this order, see in favour 
 of the jurisdiction of the Court, Chowick v. Dimes, 3 
 Beav. 290 ; and against it, Canham v. Vincent, 8 Sim. 
 211 ; Dryden v. Walford, 1 F. §• C. C. C. 625 ; and Lee 
 V. Lee, 1 Ha. loll. 
 
 It seems, that where the suit abates by the marriage 
 
 of a sole female plaintiff, the order will be on the husband 
 
 to revive, or for the bill to be dismissed without costs 
 
 {Westropp V. Healey, Fl. ^ K. 141). 
 
 iv. Where Where one of several co-plaintiffs dies, any defendant 
 
 tiffdfes:— ™^y' °^ motion before decree, obtain an order that the 
 
 with costs surviving plaintiffs revive within a limited time, or in 
 
 surviving default the bill be dismissed with costs {Adamson v. Hall, 
 
 plaintiffs. T. §• B. 258, overruling s. c. 1 S. Sf S. 249, where the 
 
 motion was before answer ; Chichester v. Hunter, 3 Beav. 
 
 491, where the cause was at issue) ; and for the form of 
 
 the order see Holcombe v. Trotter, 1 Coll. 654. It is no 
 
 answer to such motion, that no administration has been 
 
 taken out to the deceased plaintiffs, it being the duty of 
 
 • the survivors to take out administration for the purpose of 
 
 the suit {Saner v. Deaven, 16 Beav. 30). 
 
 Boiruin- ^^ ^ ^°^^ plaintiff becomes bankrupt or insolvent, a 
 
 tiff be- motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, on notice 
 
 bank- served on the plaintiff only, is irregular, and will be re- 
 
 rupt:— fused with costs {Robinson v. Norton, 10 Beav. 484). The 
 
 without ' 
 
 costs. 
 
DISPOSAL OF COSTS OF THE SUIT BEFORE IlEAraNG. 57 
 
 proper covirse is for the defendant to move, on notice 
 served upon the assignees and upon the plaintiff ( Vestris 
 V. Hooper, 8 Sim. 570), that the assignees revive within a 
 limited time, or in default the bill be dismissed without 
 costs {S/iarpe v. Hulett, 2 iS*. l^- S. 496 ; Lord Huntingtower 
 v. Sherhorn, 5 Beav. 380, following on the question of 
 costs the earlier cases of Rmtdall v. Mumford, 18 Ves. 
 427 ; French v. Barton, ibid. n. ; Wheeler v. Malins, 4 
 3Iad. 171; Porter v. Cox, 5 Mad. 80); and see also 
 Fisher v. Fisher, 6 Ha. 628. The common foi-m of order 
 will not be departed from, though the plaintiff has taken 
 steps in the suit without gi^'ing notice of his bankruptcy 
 or insolvency, and so led the defendant to incur costs 
 subsequently to and without notice of it {Meiklam v. 
 Elmore, 4 De G. .^ J. 208). If the bankruptcy or , 
 insolvency happens after decree, the order will be that 
 proceedings be stayed insteadof the bill being dismissed* 
 ( IJliitmore v. Oxharrow, 1 Col. 91 ; Clarke v. Tipping, 
 16 Beav. ] 2). In Daniel v. Harding, lY.SfC. C. C. 436, 
 where the sole plaintiff had become insolvent and the 
 sole defendant was his assignee, the Court made a special 
 order for dismissal with costs, the defendant undertaking 
 not to proceed against the plaintiff personally for them. 
 
 If one of several co-plaintiffs becomes bankrupt or ri. Wljere 
 insolvent, an order will be made on the other plaintiffs tiffbe-""" 
 without service on the assiarnees to perfect the suit within comes 
 
 . . . bank- 
 
 a limited time, or in default the bill will be dismissed with rupt: 
 
 costs {Ward v. Ward, 8 Beav. 397); and se7nUe the ^'^^^^°'^' 
 notice of motion and consequent order should not express other 
 dismissal to be 'for want of prosecution' (ibid.); but see I"*™' 
 Caddick V. 3Iasson, 1 Sim. 501 ; Latham v. Henrick, 
 ibid. 502, n. ; Kilminster v. Pratt, 1 Ha. 632. 
 
 In Reeves v. Baker, 13 Beav. 115, Lord Langdale, Whether 
 M.R., is reported to have held that the representatives of [^fj^g^^fof 
 
 ♦ As to whether a bill can be dismissed after decree, see GuHhert v. 
 Hawks, 1 Ch. C. 40 ; Carrington r. HoUy, 1 Bicl:. 280 ; Barton v. Barton, 
 Z K. ^ J. 512 ; Egg v. Deuey, 11 Beav. 221. 
 
58 
 
 COSTS or A SUIT GENEKALLY. 
 
 deceased 
 defendant 
 may dis- 
 miss the 
 biUin 
 default of 
 revivor. 
 
 AVTiere 
 
 defendant 
 
 becomes 
 
 bankrupt, 
 
 his 
 
 assignees 
 
 cannot 
 
 dismiss. 
 
 vii. On 
 
 defendant 
 
 satisfying 
 
 plaintiff's 
 
 demand, 
 
 a deceased defendant could not move that the plaintiff 
 should revive against them within a limited time, or that 
 in default the bill be dismissed as against the deceased 
 defendant ; but in the Registrar's note of the same case 
 given in 2 De G. M. ^ G. 679, n., it appears that a bill 
 of revivor had been filed, and the question was as to the 
 costs of the application only. Burnell v. Duke of 
 Wellington, 6 Sim. 461, and Powell v. Powell, 2 De G. 
 M. §• G. 678, n., are direct authorities the other way ; 
 though in the former case the plaintiffs did not appear, and 
 the question therefore was not. argued. In Norton v. 
 White, 2 De G. M. ^ G. 678, which was a vendor's suit for 
 specific performance, the Lords Justices made the order 
 after a report in favour of the plaintiff's title.* In Cross 
 V. Cross, 2 N.R. 351, the plaintiff consented to dismiss his 
 bill, and the only question being whether the dismissal 
 should be with or without costs, V. C. Stuart dismissed 
 the bill without costs. The balance of authority appears 
 to be in favour of the practice as laid dofSTi in Burnell v. 
 Duke of Wellington, loc. cit., and of the dismissal being 
 \vithout costs ; but it is difficult to see why it should be so, 
 as the case of a sole plaintiff dying, referred to by V. C. 
 Stuart, seems to bear but a remote analogy to the case of 
 a defendant. 
 
 In the case of the bankruptcy of a defendant, the Court 
 refused (in 3Ia.nson v. Burton, 1 Coll. 626) to make an 
 order that a supplemental bill should be filed within a 
 limited time against the assignees, or in default the bill be 
 dismissed. 
 
 Any defendant may at any time before decree, by pay- 
 ing to the plaintiff all his demands, together with aU the 
 costs of the suit {i.e. the plaintiff's OAvn costs and the costs 
 of the other defendants) obtain an order for dismissal of 
 
 * Sed qu. the correctness of dismissing the bill in this case as, according 
 to Biscoe V. Srett, 2 T. ^ S. 377, where a reference as to title is made, tlie 
 cause is to be considered in the same state as if a decree to that effect had 
 been made on the hearing of the cause. 
 
DISPOSAL OF COSTS OF THE SUIT BEFORE HEAEING. 59 
 
 the bill, or staying proceedings, on such payment being f^i"! Paying 
 
 made {Praed v. Hull, 1 S. c^- S. 331; Darner v. Lord thesult?^ 
 
 Portarlingtim, 2 Ph. 30; Paynter v. Careio, Kay, app. 
 
 xxxvi.); not-^vithstanding the opposition of the plaintiff 
 
 {Darner x. Lord Portarlington, loc. cit.), or of the other 
 
 defendants {Paynter \. Carcw, loc. cit. ; Jones \. Tinney, 
 
 Kay, app. xlv.); and although the plaintiff sues on 
 
 behalf of others as well as himself {Manton v. Roe, 14 
 
 Sim. 352; Pemberton \. Topham, 1 Beav. 316). The 
 
 order is for the plaintiff to pay the costs of the defendants 
 
 (other than the one mo^-ing), the plaintiff ha\'ing them 
 
 over from the defendant moving [Jones v. Tinney, loc. cit.). 
 
 In a foreclosure suit, the defendant must have actually paid 
 
 to the plaintiff, or tendered to him, the amount of his 
 
 demand before he moves, and be ready at once to pay a 
 
 sum int« Court to answer costs {Paynter v. Carew, loc. 
 
 cit. ; Challie v. Gwynne, Kay, app. xlvi.). The defendant but not 
 
 cannot obtain the order, if there is any question in dispute qx^estion 
 
 between him and the plaintiff {ex. gr. whether certain '^ l^^'- 
 
 costs incurred in reference to the subject matter of the 
 
 suit ought or ought not to be paid by the defendant), and 
 
 the defendant does not submit thereto {pield v. Robinson, 
 
 7 Beav. 66; IVainwright \ . Setuell, 11 IV. R. 560); but 
 
 see Penny v. Beavan, 12 Jur. 936, where the Court 
 
 decided, on the motion, the question whether certain costs 
 
 were properly included in the plaintiff's costs of the suit. 
 
 In Holden v. Kynaston, 2 Beav. 204, proceedings were And semhle. 
 
 stayed against two defendants, who had satisfied the out costs" 
 
 plaintiff^s demand as against them, without costs on the though a 
 
 ground of a previous tender ; sed. qu. see Wainwright v. tender has 
 
 Sewell, loc. cit. In a legatee's suit, the bill was dismissed ^<'™ '"'^'^'^■ 
 
 on payment into Court of the amount of the legacy, and As to 
 
 ,..«,«, /.T . . ni dismissinn; 
 
 to the plaintiir oi the costs oi the suit, as against all the i^m against 
 executors except one, who was also the representative of some only 
 an incumbrancer on the legacy, and between whom and dants. 
 the plaintiff was a question of account ( Sawyer v. Mills, 
 1 Mac. §• G. 390) ; and see further as to staying pro- 
 
60 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY, 
 
 viii. "Where 
 plaintiff 
 elects to 
 proceed 
 at law : — 
 with costs. 
 
 ix. Where 
 two 
 
 creditors' 
 suits are 
 instituted. 
 X. Where 
 infant's 
 suit is 
 improper, 
 with costs 
 against 
 next friend. 
 
 xi. Dis- 
 claiming 
 defen- 
 dants. 
 
 Bill filed 
 without 
 authority 
 dismissed, 
 or taken 
 off the file 
 on plain- 
 ' tiff's appli- 
 cation, 
 with costs 
 against the 
 solicitor. 
 
 ceedings against particular defendants, Holden v. Kynaston, 
 loc. cit. 
 
 If the plaintiif is suing the defendant both at law and 
 in equity, and, upon the defendant obtaining the common 
 order for the plaintiff to elect, he elects to proceed at law, 
 his bill in equity is dismissed with costs {Mousley v. 
 Basnett, \ V. ^ B. 382, n. ; Boyd v. Heinzelman, 1 V. 
 §• ^. 381 ; Jones v. Earl of Strafford, 3 P. W. 90). Or if 
 the plaintiff elects to proceed as to part of his demand at 
 law and as to part in equity, as to that part with respect 
 to which he elects to proceed at law, his biU ■will be dis- 
 missed with costs (Anon. 3 P. W. 90, n.). 
 
 As to the costs where proceedings are stayed in a 
 creditor's suit, after a decree has been obtained in another 
 suit for the same purpose, see post, ch. iv. sec. ii. 
 
 If it appears to the Court that a suit instituted on behalf 
 of infants was improperly instituted and is not for their 
 benefit, the Court mil, on interlocutory appKcation by 
 any of the defendants, dismiss the bill witii costs to be 
 paid by the next friend (Fox v. Suwerkrop, 1 Beav. 583); 
 and in a clear case the order will be made Avithout a pre- 
 vious reference (Sale v. Sale, ibid. 586). 
 
 Disclaiming defendants may move to have the bill dis- 
 missed against them with, or without costs, according to 
 circumstances (Hawkins v. Gardiner, 1 W. R. 345), or 
 to have their names struck out of the bill (Bellany v. 
 Brickenden, 4 K. Sf J. 670). As to the cases in which a 
 disclaiming defendant will be dismissed with or without 
 costs, see post, pp. 80, seq. 
 
 If a bill is filed without proper authority, the plaintiff 
 may move to have the bill either dismissed ( Wright v. 
 Castle, 3 Mer. 12 ; Allen V. Bone, 4 Beav. 493), or taken 
 off the m.e(Wade v. Stanley, \ J. ^ W. 674 ; Martindale 
 V. Lawson, C. P. C. 83), in either case with costs against 
 the solicitor. The plaintiff must pay the defendant's 
 costs in the first instance, but mtII have them together 
 with his own costs, including the costs of the application. 
 
DISPOSAL OF COSTS OF THE SUIT BEFORE HEARING. 61 
 
 as between solicitor and client over from the solicitor (see 
 the form of order in IFade v. Stanlci/, loc. cit. ; and Jerdein 
 V. Bright, 10 JV. R. 380); but the defendants ought not 
 to be served with notice of the motion, and if they appear, 
 the plaintiff must pay their costs, and will not get them 
 over from the solicitor {ibid.). If the bill is dismissed with 
 costs before the plaintiff interposes, he cannot be relieved 
 from his liability to the defendants {Dundas v. Dutens, 1 
 Ves. Junr. 200, s. c. 2 Cox 240 ; Hood v. Phillips, 6 Beav. 
 176; Tarhuck v. Woodcock, ibid. 581); but the plaintiff 
 may afterwards recover his costs, charges, and expenses 
 from the solicitor, either by petition {Norton v. Cooper, 
 3 Sm. i^- G. 375), or motion {Malins v. Greenway, 10 
 Beav. 56-4 ; Hood v. Phillips, loc. cit.). In Jerdein v. 
 Bright, loc. cit., the bill was filed under an authority 
 which had, in the opinion of the Court, been improperly 
 obtained from the plaintiff, and V. C. Wood made the 
 same order as if the bill had been filed without autho- 
 rity ; but he refused the plaintiff his costs of the appli- 
 cation, because he raised an issue between himself and 
 the solicitor, on which he could not be believed. In 
 like manner, one of several co-plaintiffs may apply to 
 have his name, if inserted without proper authority, 
 struck out of the record ^ith costs of the suit and of 
 the application to be paid by the solicitor {Wilson 
 V. Wilson, 1 Jac..^ W. 457 ; Tabbernor v. Tabbernor, 2 
 Keen, 679; Pinner \. Knights, 6 Beav. 175; Maries y. 
 Maries, 23 L. J. ch. 154). But the Court will not 
 allow a co-plaintiff, who originally authorised the suit, to 
 withdraw from it to the prejudice of the other plaintiffs ; 
 and a motion by a co-plaintiff that on further proceedings 
 being taken he should be indemnified by the solicitor was 
 refused with costs ( Winthrop v. Murray, 7 Ha. 152). The 
 order made on the plaintiff's motion will of course be 
 without prejudice to any rights, which the solicitor may 
 have against any person who really authorised the suit ; 
 but the Court will not, on the plaintiffs motion, adjudicate 
 
62 COSTS OP A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 between the solicitor and such other person, though one 
 On defen- of the defendants ( Crossley v. Crowther, 9 Ha. 384). A 
 appKca- niotion may also be made by a defendant, to have a bill 
 tion. filed by a solicitor either dismissed, or taken off the file 
 
 with costs against the solicitor; see Fergus Navigation 
 ^ Embankment Company, v. Kingdon, 4 L. T. n. s. 262, 
 where the bill was filed in the name of a company on the 
 authority of one of the directors against the other directors ; 
 and Burgesses of Ruthin v. Adams, 7 Sim. 345. If the 
 suit is really instituted by one of the defendants, the costs 
 may be ordered to be paid by that defendant ; see Blake 
 V. Smith, Yo. 594, where the plaintiff was imbecile. In 
 Hall V. Bennett, 1 S. Sf S. 78, where a bill had been filed 
 without authority from the nominal plaintiff, who had 
 absconded eight years before, and was dismissed with 
 costs for want of prosecution, the 'Court, on motion by 
 the defendants, ordered the solicitor to pay the costs. If 
 a solicitor gives the relator in a charity information an 
 indemnity against costs, or uses his name without authority 
 (though afterwards assented to), the Court will order the 
 information to be taken off the bill with costs against the 
 relator and solicitor {Attorney General v. Skinners^ Com- 
 vany, C. P. C. 7). As to what is a sufficient retainer, see 
 Hall V. Laver, 1 Ha. 571 ; Beioley v. Seymour, 14 Jur. 
 213; Atkinson t. Abbot, 3 Drew. 251. The onus of 
 proving the retainer lies on the solicitor { Wright v. Castle, 
 3 Mer. 12 ; Allen v. Bone, 4 Beav. 493 ; Wiggins v. 
 Peppin, 2 Beav. 403 ; Crossley v. Crowther, 9 Ha. 384) ; 
 but the retainer need not be in writing {Lord v. Kellett, 
 2 My. ^ K.\, and cases there cited) ; and the authority 
 to a country solicitor is siifficient without express authority 
 to the London agents {Solley v. Wood, 16 Beav. 370). 
 
COSTS OF THE DAY. 63 
 
 Section VII.— Costs of the Day. 
 
 ' AYhere a cause which stands for hearing is called on where a 
 to be heard, but cannot be decided by reason of a want of '^™^'^ ^^ 
 
 J- ^^ t f . -, r. , struck out 
 
 parties or other defect on the part of the plamtiiF, and is, of the 
 therefore, struck out of the paper, and the same cause is the hear- 
 again set down, the defendant shall be allowed the taxed i°g. owing 
 costs occasioned by the first setting down, although he pUnntiff's 
 does not obtain the costs of the suit ' (40 Cons. Ord. r. 21). default. 
 "When a cause is set down as ' short ' and struck out, the 
 defendants will be entitled to the costs of the day, unless 
 they concurred {Mellish t. Brooks, C. P. C. 474). 
 
 The more usual course, where there is a defect for want WTiere a 
 of parties, is to direct the cause to stand over with liberty ^^^^^^ ^^.^ 
 to amend. In disposing of the costs of the day, in that for a defect 
 case, the Court was formerly absolutely guided by the '^^^ ^^^' 
 consideration, whetlier the objection was taken by the de- liberty to 
 
 « -, , , amend. 
 
 lendants answer or not {Mitchell v. Bailey, 3 Mad. 61 ; 
 Court \. Jejfery, 1 S. §• S. 106). That rule, however, Costs of 
 has been much relaxed, and the costs of the day have \^q^J^ 
 frequently been allowed, although the objection is not tiough the 
 taken by the answer, on the ground that it is the plaintiff's jg not 
 duty to put the record in a proper state (Lowry v. Fulton, ^f-'^™ ^y 
 9 Sim. 115 ; Hill v. Kirwan, Jac. 163 ; Bailey v. Dennett, 
 3 Y. ^ C. 459). In Attorney General v. Hill, 3 3Iy. §• 
 C. 247, the defendants were held to be entitled to the 
 costs of the day, though they had neither taken the 
 objection by their answer, nor even insisted on it at the 
 hearing, and the relator himself had drawn the attention 
 of the Court to the defect. In J-Vilson v. Broughton, 7 
 L. J. n. s. 120, on the other hand, the defendants not 
 having taken the objection by answer did not receive their 
 costs. The present rule of the Court appears to be cor- if the 
 rectly stated in Furze v. Sharwood, 5 My. ^ C. 96, namely, apparent 
 that where the defect appears on the face of the bill on the face 
 
 •ITT nit 1 , of the bill. 
 
 the defendant is entitled to the costs of the day, though 
 
64 
 
 COSTS OE A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 If no 
 answer is 
 required, 
 the 
 
 objection 
 shoiild be 
 made by 
 affidavit. 
 
 If defen- 
 dants are 
 in default, 
 they are 
 liable for 
 the costs of 
 the day. 
 
 The costs 
 of the day 
 fixed at 
 £10. 
 
 he has not taken the objection by answer, but secus if the 
 objection depends on circumstances within the defendant's 
 knowledge; and see Keating v. Keating, 1 Moll. 218. It 
 is sufficient that the defendant draws attention to the 
 defect in his answer, though he does not actually object 
 ( Giles V. Giles, 5 L. J. n. s. 46). If no answer is required, 
 the objection should be taken by affidavit (Nelson r. 
 Seaman, 1 De G. F. §• J. 368 ; Cox v. Stephens, 2 N. R. 
 506). Where one defendant became insolvent after the 
 other had put in his answer, and the cause stood over at 
 the hearing to make the assignees parties, the other 
 defendant received his costs without prejudice to the ques- 
 tion by whom they should ultimately be borne ( Sambrook 
 V. Hayes, 6 L. J. n. s. 258). In Biedermann v. Seymour, 
 1 Beav. 594, the cause was brought on a second time with 
 a defect of parties uncured, and the Court gave leave to 
 amend only on payment of the costs of the two hearings. 
 Where the objection had been taken by answer, and the 
 absent parties were made defendants by amendment, but 
 being out of the jurisdiction had not been served, the 
 objection being renewed at the hearing was allowed, and 
 the defendants had the costs of the day {Moodie v. 
 Bannister, 1 fV. R. 405, s.c. 17 Jur. 520). 
 
 On the other hand, if the defendants, by answer admit 
 that all necessary parties are present, but at the hearing 
 successfully object for want of parties, they will have to 
 pay the costs of the day (Price v. Berrington, 2 Beav. 285). 
 Or if a defendant objects by answer, but fails to estabKsh 
 his objection by the proper evidence at the hearing, he 
 must pay the costs, if the cause has to stand over for the 
 production of the evidence {Barker v. Railton, 11 L. J. 
 n. s., ch. 372). 
 
 The costs of the day are now fixed at £10, unless the 
 Court shall otherwise direct (40 Cons. Ord. r. 22). Only 
 one sum of £10 is payable, though there are several 
 defendants, and where only one defendant objected by 
 his answer, it was held that the £10 must, nevertheless. 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 65 
 
 be divided with his co-defendant {Fowler v. Reynolds, cor. 
 V.C. Knight Bruce, 1848, cited in Seton, 1117). 
 
 The costs of the day will not be given where the defect Where the 
 occurs after the cause was at issue (Fussell y. Elwin, 7 ^"^'^"^^^^^ 
 
 V ' day are not 
 
 Ha. 29) ; nor where the cause is set down by the plaintiff allowed. 
 for further consideration, and on exceptions to the chief 
 clerk's certificate, and the exceptions are allowed {Blame 
 V. Harvey, 12 L. J. n. s. 66, 7 Jur. 229). 
 
 The Court will sometimes also reserve the costs when 
 the cause stands over with hberty to amend {Mason v. 
 FranUyn, 1 Jo. §■ C. C. C. 242). 
 
 Section VIII. — Costs of the Suit. 
 
 Where further consideration of the cause is reserved. The costs 
 the costs of the suit are generally also reserved ^hen^dis-' 
 {Scarborough v. Burton, 2 Atk. Ill ; Jellicoe v. Price, 1 posed of. 
 Y. §■ C. C. C. 74) ; but otherwise they are usually dis- 
 posed of at the hearing. If the costs of the suit are 
 reserved at the hearing, that reservation will not include 
 costs of interlocutory proceedings, &c. reserved until the 
 hearing, which therefore, unless expressly mentioned, are 
 lost ( Gardner v. Marshall, 14 Sim. 575 ; Whalley v. 
 Ramadge, 8 L. T. n. s. 499). Although the costs of the 
 suit are not expressly reserved at the hearing, yet the 
 usual direction for the adjournment of the further con- 
 sideration of the cause in effect reserves them {Seton, 
 p. 57) ; and see Wallis v. Bastard, 2 W. R. 47. 
 
 In some instances, however, the Court divides the May he 
 costs, and gives at the hearing the costs up to the decree ^^^l^'^ 
 and reserves the subsequent costs (as in Macartney v. differeut 
 Graham, 2 R. 8f M. 353; and see post, p. 89) ^ or on 
 further consideration gives the costs up to the decree to 
 the plaintiff and the subsequent costs to the defendant 
 
66 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLT. 
 
 Costs in 
 equity 
 are discre- 
 tionary, 
 
 tut in 
 general 
 follow the 
 result. 
 
 (as in Header v. MCready, 1 Moll. 119; Anon. 4 Mad. 
 273 ; Sentance v. Porter, 7 Ha. 426) ; or lastly, gives the 
 costs of a part of the suit at the hearing and reserves 
 the rest {Hardy v. Hull, 17 Beav. 355). 'Where, 
 however, the question of costs is partly disposed of 
 at the hearing, the further consideration of the 
 costs undisposed of should be expressly reserved by 
 the decree; Horsfall v. Garnett, V. C. W. 5 Mar. 
 1858, Regr. Min. 246, and so in Chilton v. Crosby, V.C. 
 W. 6 Mar. 1858, Regr. Min. 270 ' {Seton, p. 57). An 
 express reservation of costs as to some defendants did 
 not prevent the Court giving their costs to other defen- 
 dants, as to whom an issiie had been directed, and con- 
 sideration of all further proceedings had been reserved 
 till after trial {Rice v. Gordon, 14 Beav. 508). If the 
 costs of the suit are given at the hearing, they include 
 all the costs of the suit, and the subsecLuent costs are not 
 reserved ( Quarrell v. Beckford, 1 Mad. 286 ; Clutton v. 
 Pardon, T. §• R. 304). 
 
 The costs of a suit in equity do not, as at law, invari- 
 ably follow the result, but are in the discretion of the 
 Court {Bennett College v. Carey, 3 Bro.- C. C. 390; 
 Jones V. Coxeter, 2 Atk. 400 ; Corporation of Burford v. 
 Lenthall, 2 Atk. 552 ; Bromley v. Holland, 7 Ves. 28 ; 
 Millington v. Fox, 3 My. ^ C. 352) ; hvit prima facie the 
 party failing is liable to costs, and the onus lies on those 
 parties who allege circumstances to outweigh the prima 
 facie claim ( Vancouver v. Bliss, 11 Ves. 463 ; Hampson v. 
 Brandwood, 1 Mad. 394). Several Judges have suc- 
 cessively expressed a desire that the costs in equity should 
 more regularly follow the result, and the tendency of 
 modern decisions is in that direction ; see the dicta of 
 Lord Eldon in Vancouver v. Bliss, loc. cit., and Staines v. 
 Morris, 1 F. ^ 5. 3, 15 ; of Lord Cottenham in Millington 
 V. Fox, loc. cit. ; and Lord Westbury in Bartlett v. Wood, 
 9fV.R. 817. His Lordship says, ' I have had occasion to 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 67 
 
 observe upon the general rule, and it is one from which 
 most undoubtedly, so far as I am concerned, I shall 
 seldom depart — namely, that in contentious cases the 
 costs of the litigation must be considered as following the 
 result of it' (9 JF. R. 818). 
 
 Even where the plaintiff fails in his suit, it is now A plaintiff 
 settled, contrary to the former doctrine {Wykham v. tSi^ 
 JVykhain, 18 Ves. 423), that he may nevertheless receive maynever- 
 his costs, if there is a fund to be administered or an estate his costf.^if 
 in Litigation, and the case involves a point of construction *^® j" ^^ ^ 
 
 ?. , . . . . fund, or 
 
 on which it IS necessary that the opinion of the Court estate in 
 should be taken {Thomason v. Moses, 5 Beav. 77 ; Lee v. ^^'^S^*'™: 
 Delane, 4 De G. &,• S. 1 ; TVestcgtt v. Culliford, 3 Ha. 
 274 ; Wedgeicood v. Adams, 8 Beav. 103 ; and see the 
 earlier cases collected in the notes to the two last cases). 
 The principle of these cases is thus stated by Lord 
 Langdale, M. E.. : ' If, through the exertions of a plaintiff, 
 the Court is enabled to distribute a fund, or if it makes 
 a declaration of rights necessary for its administration, / 
 
 there, although the plaintiff may fail in his claim, the ry^ 
 
 Court will not permit the other parties to carryoff the 
 fruit of his exertions~witKut^3e|rayrng his_costs out of 
 the fund' (8 Beav. 105); and see Taylor v. Haygarth^S 
 Jur. 135. The plaintiff may obtain his costs out of the 
 fund or estate, although the bill be dismissed (Ashe v. 
 Berry, 3 Moll. 97 ; Lynn v. Beaver, T. ^ R.%%; Windham 
 V. Graham, 1 Russ. 347 ; Hardey v. Hawkshaw, 12 Beav. 
 552 ; Douglas v. Cooper, 3 My. §• K. 382). But the cir- 
 cumstance of the defendants asking for a declaration of 
 title in their favour is an inducement for the Court to 
 give costs ( Thomason v. Moses, loc. cit. ; Johnston v. 
 Todd, 8 Beav. 489 ; Merlin v. Blagrave, 25 Beav. 125). 
 In Wisden v. Wisden, 5 Jur. n. s. 86, where the costs of 
 the suit were payable out a fund belonging to the plain- 
 tiffs, defendants who took a declaration of title had no 
 costs. A plaintiff claiming to be a creditor of a deceased 
 
 F 2 
 
68 COSTS or a suit genekallt. 
 
 person and failing, does not come within the rule {Jones v: 
 
 How, 14 Jur. 145 ; and see Perry v. Morse, 1 Ho. Lds. 
 
 Ca. 71, 78) ; and the plaintiff must have a probabilis causa 
 
 litigandi (^Boreham v. Bignall, 8 Ha. 134). If, however, 
 
 the plaintiff has acquiesced in the construction in favour 
 
 of which the Court decides for a long period before filing 
 
 the bill, it will be dismissed without costs, though the 
 
 point was sufficiently doubtful to justify the suit {Yockney 
 
 Bed qu. y. Hansard, 5 Jur. 822). But where there is no fund or 
 
 personally estate in litigation, it is at least doubtful whether a plain- 
 
 from a i]ff wliose bill IS dismissed can have his costs from a de- 
 
 deienaant, 
 
 wherethere fcudant personally ; see Cooth v. Jackson, 6 Ves. 41 ; 
 or estate."^ Tidwell v. Ariel, 3 Mad. 409 ; Lewis v. Loxham, 3 Mer. 
 429, where the jurisdiction was denied. On the other hand 
 see Springfield v. Ollett, 3 Mer. 429, n. ; DufaurY. Sigel, 
 4 De G. M. Sf G. 520, 525. ' I have had considerable 
 doubt, and have looked with my learned brother into 
 several cases, upon the question of directing costs to be 
 paid by a defendant, where there is neither a fund to be 
 administered nor an estate in dispute, and where a plain- 
 tiff's case fails. Without saying that the jurisdiction does 
 not exist, I think it a jurisdiction of considerable delicacy 
 and difficulty.'— Per L. J. Knight Bruce (4 Be G. M. 
 Sf G. 525). 
 Certain Although the disposal of costs is in the discretion of 
 
 principles the Court, there are, nevertheless, certain general 
 b '^thT^ .principles adopted by the Court, which regulate the costs 
 Court in of suits generally, as well as others in reference to the 
 ofTeTofts ^°®*® °^ particular kinds of suits. The latter are discussed 
 of the suit, in the next chapter ; of the former it is attempted to give 
 
 some explanation below. 
 Where the As a general rule, when the plaintiff's title to relief de- 
 suts"in pends on a legal right, he is entitled, if successful, to his 
 
 W title" °°^^^ ^°^^ ^* ^^^ ^^^ ™ equity (Corporation of Rochester 
 V. Lee, 2 Be G. M. Sf G. 427 ; and see Trinity House v. 
 Rgall, 3 Bra. P. C. 389 ; Farina v. Silverlock, 4 K. Sf J. 
 650; Burgess v. Hately, 26 Beav. 249). On the other 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 69 
 
 hand, the bill will be dismissed with costs, if the plaintiff 
 sues in respect of a legal title which he fails to establish 
 ( Chappelt V. Purday, 2 Ph. 227 ; Boucicault v. Delafield, 
 3 ^V. i?. 32 ; Corporation of Rochester X. Lee, loc. cit.) ; or 
 if the bill is ancillary to the plaintiff's legal rights and he 
 fails at law {Met/rick v. JJliishaw, 4 3Iad. 272). But this 
 rule is not inflexible ; ex. gr. in Leather Cloth Company 
 V. American Leather Cloth Company, 3 N. R. 264, the 
 Lord Chancellor dismissed a bill to restrain the infringe- 
 ment of an alleged trade mark, but without costs on 
 account of the defendants' conduct. Where, according to Distinction 
 the old practice, proceedings at law were had in the course t^e rosts 
 of the suit in equity, the Court frequently made a dis- ^t law and 
 tinction between the costs at law and those in equity. The 
 former almost invariably followed the result of the action or 
 issue,* whilst in the disposal of the latter the Court was in- 
 fluenced by considerations as to the conduct of the parties 
 ( Clifton V. Orchard, 1 Atk. 610 ; Anon. 2 Atk. 14 ; Forioard 
 \. Duffield, 3 Ath. 555 ; Stevens v. Praed, 2 Ves. Junr. 
 591 ; Wright v. Hunter, 5 Ves. 792 ; Jones v. Farrell, 1 
 De G.^ J. 208) ; and see further as to the costs of issues 
 generally following the result, Beames, 233 seq., and Cor- 
 poration of Rochester v. Lee, loc. cit. In Wilson v. Met- 
 calfe, 3 Mad. 45, an issue having been granted in a fore- 
 closure suit, whether the mortgagee's heir was dead, and 
 found against the mortgagee, he paid no costs, because 
 the Court by granting the issue showed that it thought 
 the objection reasonable. The costs of an issue ordered The costs 
 to be tried in the course of the suit are not strictly part 
 of the costs of the suit ; and, if the issue be ordered on 
 interlocutory application, may even be disposed of before 
 the hearing of the cause {^Duncan v. Varty, 2 Ph. 699, 
 overruling Malins v. Price, 2 Coll. 1 90 ; Righy v. Great 
 Western Railway Company, 14 Jur. 710). But the costs 
 of a case sent for the opinion of a Court of Law have 
 
 * Except in the case of a bill to establish a will against an lieir-at-law, 
 as to which see post, ch. fi. sec. vii. 
 
70 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Issues 
 found each 
 way. 
 
 Where a 
 new trial is 
 directed. 
 
 Under the 
 
 present 
 
 practice. 
 
 been held to be costs in the cause {Humphrey v. Grey, 3 
 De G. §- S. 450 ; but see contra, Salkeld v. Johnston, 1 
 Mac. §• G. 533). In Prevost v. Benett, 2 Price 272, where 
 several issues were found partly for the plaintiff and partly 
 for the defendant, each party was allowed the costs of the 
 issues found in his favour, and had to pay the costs of 
 those found against him; but in Weatherley v. Ross, 1 H. 
 §• M. 349, no costs of the issues were given under similar 
 circumstances, though the defendant had the costs of the 
 suit. 
 
 It is a general rule that where a trial at law fails 
 through misdirection of the Judge, and a new trial is 
 directed, no costs of the first trial are given to either 
 party, whatever may be the result of the second trial 
 {Bearbloch, Y. Tyler, Jac. 571; Corporation of Rochester 
 V. Lee, 2 De G. M. §■ G. 427, 431 ; White v. Lisle, 3 
 Swans. 343, s. c. 4 Mad. 214; Duncan v. Varty, 2 Ph. 
 699). In Duncan v. Varty, where the plaintiff succeeded 
 at the first trial and failed at the second, no costs were 
 given of the first trial or of the motion for a new trial ; but 
 in Bearblock v. Tyler, loc. cit., under similar circumstances, 
 the party failing at the last trial had to pay the costs of 
 the motion ; and see White v. Lisle, loc. cit. Where a new 
 trial was ordered on payment by the defendants to the 
 plaintiffs (the successful parties at the first trial) of the 
 costs of the first trial, it was held that the defendants 
 were not compellable to pay those costs unless they pro- 
 ceeded to a new trial (Lambert v. Fisher, 7 Sim. 525). 
 In Parker v. Morrell, 2 Ph. 453, a party failing on an 
 issue appealed against the order directing it, the Lord 
 Chancellor reversed the order and directed a new issue, 
 but reserved the costs. 
 
 The practice is now changed by Stat. 25 & 26 Vict. 
 c. 42, and the Court does not direct an action to be 
 brought, or ordinarily send issues to be tried at law 
 {Davenport v. Jepson, IN.R.ll^; Egmont v. Darell, 1 H. 
 §• M. 563 ; Young v. Fernie, 1 De G. J. §• S. 353) ; but it 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 71 
 
 seems that the same practice will be followed with regard 
 to the costs of issues tried before the Court itself, as 
 formerly regulated the costs of issues sent for trial at law. 
 See ex. gr. Weatherley v. Ross, I H. Sf M. 349, where 
 the defendant had the costs of the suit, but no costs were 
 given of the issues ; and the dictum of Lord Cranworth, 
 L. J., in Martin v. Pycroft, 2 De G. M. §• G. 785, with 
 respect to the costs of a viva voce examination under Stat. 
 15 & 16 Vict c. 86, s. 39. 
 
 Where the courts of law and equity have concurrent "Where 
 jurisdiction, and a plaintiff's bill in Chancery is dismissed, concurrent 
 such dismissal does not ordinarily prevent his proceeding j^ris- 
 at law, and it seems unnecessary to insert in the order a jaw and in 
 statement that the bill is dismissed without prejudice to an equity. 
 action at law. In some of the older cases the bill was 
 dismissed without costs, on condition of the plaintiff waiv- 
 ing his rights at law, and liberty was reserved to the de- 
 fendants to apply for their costs in equity in case the 
 plaintiff commenced proceedings (^Harnett v. Yielding, 2 
 Sch. 8f L. 560 ; Lawrenson v. Butler, 1 Sch. Sf L. 21 ; 
 Buxton V. Lister, 3 Ath. 386; Leman v. Alie, Ami. 
 163). 
 
 If a defendant at any time during the progress of the Where 
 suit offers to submit to all the relief to which the plaintiff affected by 
 is entitled, the Court will not give the plaintiff the costs tender:— 
 
 a.it6r suit 
 
 of the subsequent prosecution of the suit if he brings it 
 to a hearing ( Colburn v. Simms, 2 Ha. 543 ; Smith v. 
 Green, 1 Coll. 555 ; Gregg v. Slater, 22 Beav. 314). 
 But a tender must be very express to save costs ; and, 
 at least, where the courts of law and equity have con- 
 current jurisdiction, as in the case of a mortgage debt, 
 it naust be a legal tender or a court of equity will 
 not support it ( GffMwiow V. Stone, 1 Ves. 339); and see 
 Paynter v. Carew, Kay, app. xxxvi. And the tender 
 must of course include the costs of the suit up to that 
 time {Lill v. Robinson, Beatt. 83 ; Fradella v. Weller, 2 
 R. 8f M. 247; Jamieson v. Teagite, 3 Jur. n. s. 1206; 
 
72 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Harris v. Harris, 1 N. R. 43, 11 W. R. 62 ; M' Andrew 
 V. Bassett, 4: N. R.\2; Moet v. Couston, ibid. 86). In 
 G^ear^/ v. iVorifow, 1 Z>e (?. §• & 12, V. C. Knight 
 Bruce held, in a suit to restrain the infringement of 
 a patent, that the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction, 
 although the defendant promised not to infringe the 
 patent and offered to pay the costs of preparing the bill ; 
 and, therefore, the defendant not having tendered the 
 costs of obtaining an injunction, the plaintiff was entitled 
 to bring the suit to a hearing and get the costs of it. 
 And in Kelly v. Hooper, I Y. ^ C. C. C. 197, the same 
 Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to an answer 
 from the defendant with a view to the account, and 
 accordingly gave him his costs of the suit, though the de- 
 fendant had before answer tendered the costs up to that 
 time, 
 or before In like manner an offer before suit from the defendant 
 
 of all the relief which the plaintiff ultimately obtains by 
 the suit, will be a reason for depriving him of the whole 
 costs of it {Millington v. Fox, 3 My. Sf Cr. 352 ; 
 Williams v. Thomas, 2 Dr. 8f Sm. 29, 37 ; Burrell v. 
 Delevante, 10 W. R. 362, 8 Jur. n. s. 204, 31 L. J. ch. 
 365 ; Remnant v. Hood, 27 Beav. 74, 82 ; Harmer v. 
 Priestley, 16 Beav. 569); or on the other hand, if the 
 plaintiff before filing the bill substantially offers the 
 terms which the Court imposes upon him, it will be a 
 reason for giving him the costs of the suit {Neshitt v. 
 Berridge, 1 N. R. 345, 11 W. R. 446, overruled on the 
 merits, 3 N. R. 53). But the defendant's offer must be 
 unconditional ; and therefore, in Wilson v. Patey, 1 Russ. 
 375, which was a suit by the trustees of a settled 
 legacy for payment of it, the costs were ordered to be 
 paid by the executor, because he had qualified his offer for 
 payment of the legacy by insisting that it should be in- 
 vested in such security as he should approve. In Edelsten 
 V. Edelsten, 1 De G. J. Sf S. 185, Lord Westbury, C. 
 said that he could not take notice of negotiations ante- 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 73 
 
 cedent to the suit, save in cases of bad faith, or where the 
 neo'otiations had amounted to a bindina; release of the 
 cause of suit ; and that the defendants in that case (who 
 had substantially acceded to the terms offered by the 
 plaintiff" before suit), ha^dng resisted the plaintiff's claim 
 and taken the chance of obtaining a benefit by the suit, 
 must bear the costs of it ; and see ]Sr Andrew v. Bassett, 
 4 N. R. 12. But on the other hand, see Williams v. 
 Thomas, loc. cit. 
 
 There is no rule more general than that, where a plaintiff Where 
 claims on the ground of fraud, the decree or dismissal charged. 
 shall be with costs {Scott v. Dunbar, 1 Moll. 442 ; New 
 Brunswick, 8fc. Company v. Conybeare, 9 Ho. Lds. Ca. 
 711; Langley v. Fisher, 9 Beav. 90; West v. Jones, 1 
 Sim. n. s. 218; and see the cases collected in Beames, 
 164, nn. (12) (14). Even if the plaintiff succeeds in 
 obtaining the relief prayed for and has the costs of the 
 suit generally, but fails to establish allegations of fraud 
 in the bUl, he must pay the costs occasioned by such 
 allegations being introduced (^Blest v. Brown, 10 W. R. 
 569, 8 Jur. n. s. 602; Jones v. Richetts, 10 W. R. 576); 
 or, for the sake of simplicity, no costs will be given to 
 either side, where, but for the allegations of fraud, the 
 plaintiff would have been entitled to the costs ( Culling- 
 XL-orth V. Lloyd, 2 Beav. 385 ; Rawlins v. Wickham, 6 
 W. R. 509) ; and see further on the subject of the appor- 
 tionment of costs, infra. But in Staniland v. Willott, 3 
 Mac. §• G. 664, where charges of fraud in the bill were 
 neither supported nor repelled by evidence on either side, 
 the costs were not thereby affected, as it did not appear 
 that any costs were specially occasioned by such charges. 
 In Fyler v. Fyler, 3 Beav. 550, however, a bill contain- 
 ino- unproven charges of fraud against solicitors was dis- 
 missed without costs, because, by mixing up their personal 
 interests in the transactions in question, the defendants 
 had rendered an investigation not unreasonable ; and in 
 De Montmorency v. Devereux, 1 CI. §• F. 188, a bill to 
 
74 COSTS OF A SUIT GENEEALLY. 
 
 set aside a gift to a solicitor was dismissed on the ground of 
 confirmation, but without costs ; and see Lord Clanricarde 
 V. Henning, 30 Beav. 175. In like manner charges of 
 fraud made by defendants will, if unsubstantiated, be 
 visited with costs, even though thp defendants get the 
 costs of the suit generally (see Wright v. Howard, 1 iS". 
 §• S., 190, 205, where the defence was by answer and 
 cross bill ; Warrin v. Thomas, 2 W. B. 442 ; Pledge v. 
 Buss. Johns. 663). Where a plaintiff succeeds in a suit 
 on the grounds of fraud, he will be entitled to all the 
 costs occasioned by it, and therefore, in Stanley v. Bond, 
 6 Beav. 423, a bill for the delivery up of securities fraudu- 
 lently obtained being taken pro confesso, the plaintiff was 
 held entitled to the costs of an action at law commenced 
 on the securities, though not specifically prayed for by 
 the bill. 
 Mis- Misconduct, or harsh and vexatious conduct of any 
 
 '^™.^"?i™ party, either before suit or in the prosecution of it, is a 
 defendant, reason for depriving him of costs, in cases where he might 
 otherwise be entitled to them ; though it is perhaps too 
 much to speak of costs, in the language of L. C. Hart 
 (^Armstrong v, Blake, 1 Moll. 178) as ' the testimonial of 
 good conduct which the Court dispenses in awarding 
 Laches. costs.' If the plaintiff has been guilty of delay or laches 
 in filing his bill, he will not get his costs, although he 
 succeeds in obtaining relief (Zee v. Brown, 4 Ves. 362 ; 
 Pearce v. Newlyn, 3 Mad. 186; Attorney General v. 
 Eastlake, 2 Eq. Rep. 145 ; Lord v. Lord, 3 Jur. n. s. 
 485) ; and if there have been proceedings at law as well 
 as in equity, the Court, although it allows a successful 
 plaintiff his costs at law, will refuse him those in equity 
 on account of his laches {Anon. 2 Ath. 14) ; and see the 
 other cases cited ante, p. 69. So delay in prosecuting the 
 suit will be a ground for refusal of costs {Archbold v. 
 Scully, 9 Ho. Lds. Ca. 360, 377 ; Cane v. Allen, 2 Dow. 
 289, 299) ; and see Purcell v. Blennerhassett, 3 Jo. SfLat. 
 24, where the original bill was filed in 1828, and the then 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 75 
 
 plaintiff having died, and a bill of revivor not having been 
 filed till 1843, L. C. Sugden gave costs only from the 
 filing of the bill of revivor. But in suits between mem- 
 bers of one family, which would naturally not be instituted 
 without much consideration, the Court will not attach 
 importance to the circumstance of some time having 
 elapsed before the claim is made ; see the observations 
 of Sir J. Eomilly, M. E., in Laver v. Fielder, 1 N. R. 
 188. His Honour was there speaking of laches as a bar, 
 but as he gave the costs to the plaintiff in that case, his 
 remarks apply as well to the subject of costs. In like 
 manner the bill will be dismissed without costs, if the de- 
 fence is successful, but the defendant's conduct has not 
 met with the Court's approval (^Leather Cloth Company 
 V. American Leather Cloth Company,^ N. R. 264; Field 
 V. Churchill, 4 Jur. 739 ; Clowes v. Beck, 2 De G. M. §• 
 G. 731). Or if the defendant by his harsh or vexatious 
 conduct has rendered the suit unavoidable, he will have to 
 pay the costs of it, though there is a question to be tried 
 {Lillie V. Legh, 2> Be G. §• J. 204); and see Lord 
 Cranstown v. Johnson, 5 Ves. 277. The same principle 
 was applied by L.C. Sugden in Wise v. Wise, 2 Jo. §• Lat. 
 403, where a person's negligence in settling an estate 
 without notice of a prior incumbrance rendered a suit to 
 enforce it necessary. And generally, where costs are 
 occasioned by the conduct of either party, that party must 
 bear them ; and where, by the misconduct of both parties, 
 neither party has costs (per V. C. Kindersley, Parr v. 
 Lovegrove, 4 Jur. n. s. 600, 605) ; and see Wallis v. 
 Bastard, 17 Jur. 1107. 
 
 Where the plaintiff is himself particeps criminis, and ^ere the 
 '^ ■" . J plaintmis 
 
 seeks to set aside a security or transaction on the ground particeps 
 
 of public policy, the decree will be without costs {Deienham <''-inams. 
 
 V. Ox, 1 Ves. 21 Q ; Morgan v. Bruen,Ll. Sf G. temp. Sugd. 
 
 180); but see contra, Jackman v. Mitchell, 13 Ves. 581. 
 
 In many of the older cases, the bill was dismissed or Where it 
 
 decree made without costs, because the Court, although it ^^^.^ 
 
76 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 / decided in favour of one party, thought it a hard case 
 upon the other party (Shales v. Barrington, \ P.W. A^\; 
 Coppin V. Coppin, 2 P. W. 291; Forbes v. Taylor, 1 Ves. 
 Junr. 99 ; Brodie v. St. Paul, 1 Ves. Junr. 326 ; Moseley 
 V. Virgin, 3 Ves. 184 ; Dickenson V. Lockyer, 4 Fes. 36 ; 
 Everett v. Backhouse, 10 Fes. 94.) But now that the 
 principles of equity are more settled, and in the present 
 inclination of the Court to make the costs follow the 
 result, it would seem that less weight would be attached 
 or the to such a consideration. Where, however, the point of 
 
 faw°b new. ^^^ involved in the case is a new one, the Court will not 
 in general visit the unsuccessful party with costs in the 
 absence of any misconduct on his part, especially if the 
 case is a hard one upon him ; see ex. gr. Job v. Bannister, 
 2 K ^ J. 374. And if the bill is filed on the authority of 
 a case which is overruled during the progress of the suit, 
 it is the course of the Court to dismiss the bill without 
 costs {Robinson v. Rosher, \ Y. ^ C. C. C. 1 ; Lanca- 
 shire Railway Company v. Evans, 14 Beav. 529 ; Sutton 
 Harbour Company v. Hichens, 1 De G. M. Sf G. 167). 
 On the other hand, the circumstance of a previous 
 decision on exactly the same point is a strong reason for 
 giving the successful party his costs {Biscoe v. Wilkes, 3 
 Mer. 456; Attorney General v. EtheYidge, 11 W. R. 
 199; Farrell v. Gleeson, 11 CI. §• F. 702; Russell v. 
 Dickson, 4 Ho. Lds. Ca. 293). 
 The person It is also a general principle that the party who is 
 V ^e°beiiefit ' eased by the institution of the suit,' or has the exclusive 
 of the suit benefit of it, should pay the costs of it ; and, therefore, 
 bear the the plaintiff in a suit under the limited liability clauses of 
 costs of it. tj^g Merchant Shipping Acts must pay the costs of all the 
 defendants, both at law and in equity {African Steam 
 Ship Company v. Swanzy, 2 K. ^ J. 668). So where a 
 plaintiff sues in respect of a lost bill of exchange, he must 
 pay the costs at least up to the hearing {Macartney v. 
 Graham, 2 R. ^ M. 353) ; but not the subsequent costs, 
 if the indemnity oifered by him is found to be suiBcient 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 77 
 
 (ibid.); and in a suit for contribution amongst co- 
 sureties each party must pay Ms own costs {Hitchman 
 v. Steicart, 3 Drew. 271). Upon this principle the 
 costs of redemption suits are disposed of, and the cases 
 will be more conveniently discussed in the following 
 chapter, where the costs of suits for redemption are 
 treated of. 
 
 If the plaintiff raises his case in such a form as to Where the 
 occasion unnecessary expense, that circumstance is taken o^^jo^g 
 into consideration with reference to costs, either by dis- unneces- 
 allowing the plaintiff the extra costs occasioned by his expense by 
 mode of pleading, or giving him no costs at all. In lusmode 
 Bensusan v. Nehemias, 4 De G. ^ S. 381, two suits his case. 
 ha^-ing been instituted where, in the opinion of the Court, 
 all the objects might have been comprised in one suit, the 
 Court allowed costs only as of one suit ; so where the plain- 
 tiff proceeded by supplemental biU instead of by petition 
 (Davies v. Williams, 1 Sim. 5). And where a bill was 
 filed for the appointment of new trustees in a case which 
 came within the Trustee Act, the plaintiff was ordered to 
 pay all the costs ( Thomas v. Walker, 18 Beav. 521) ; but 
 in Wells v. Malbon, 10 W. B. 364, 8 Jur. n. s. 249, 31 
 L. J. ch. 344, trustees who had filed a bill instead of pay- 
 ing an ascertained sum claimed by opposite parties into 
 Court under the Trustee Relief Acts, were disallowed 
 only the extra costs occasioned by their doing so. Again, 
 in Attorney General v. Holland, 2 Y. 8f C. 683, no costs 
 up to the hearing were given to the relators on a charity 
 information, the object of which might have been attained 
 by a petition under Sir S. Komilly's Act ; and see Attorney/ 
 General Y. Berry, 11 Jur. 114. In like manner, a bill 
 by an unsuccessful plaintiff was dismissed without costs 
 because the defendants, by not serving him with a 
 petition, had forced him to file a bill ( Crause v. Cooper, 
 \ J. k H. 207). On the same principle allegations in a 
 bill which prevent the case being decided on demurrer, 
 and are unsupported by the evidence, will be a ground 
 
78 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 A defen- 
 dant not 
 denmrring 
 or 
 
 putting in 
 a plea to 
 thebiU 
 may lose 
 his costs. 
 
 Objections 
 to the 
 frame of 
 the suit 
 should be 
 taken by 
 answer. 
 
 As to the 
 costs of un- 
 necessary 
 proceed- 
 ings 
 generally. 
 
 for dismissing the bill with costs {Lind v. Isle of Wight 
 Ferry Company, 1 iVi J?. 13). On the other hand, a 
 defendant is bound to make his defence in the least ex- 
 pensive form. See Sanders T. Benson, 4 Beav. 350 ; 
 Jackson V. Ogg, Johns. 402, where the defendant suc- 
 ceeded on a point which might have been raised by plea ; 
 and Anon. 3 Mad. 62, n. ; Hill v. Reardon, 2 S. Sf S. 
 439 ; Jones v. Davids, 4 Russ. 278 ; Hollingsworth v. 
 Shaheshaft, 14 Beav. 492 ; Cook v. Earl of Rosslyn, 1 
 Giff. 167; Webb v. England, 29 Beav. 44; Ernest v. 
 Weiss, 1 N. R. 189, where the defendant ought to have 
 demurred. In all these cases the Court dismissed the 
 bill simply without costs. But in Godfrey v. Tucker, 3 
 N. R. 20, Sir J. Eomilly, M. R., refused the defendant 
 his extra costs only, and allowed him the costs as of a 
 demurrer, i.e., the costs up to the filing of the answer 
 (to include the costs of taking counsel's opinion on 
 the bill, but not those of preparing the answer), and 
 the costs of the day, or the costs of the hearing, which- 
 ever would be least. A defendant is not justified in not 
 demurring on the ground that the bill contains charges of 
 fraud; see the cases collected ante, p. 21. Again, as re- 
 marked above with reference to the costs of the day, the 
 fact of an objection not having been taken by answer may 
 be material on the question of costs; see Cowley v. 
 Cowley, 9 Sim. 299, where the bill was dismissed on the 
 ground of misjoinder,* but without costs, because the ob- 
 jection was not taken by answer. 
 
 The costs of unnecessary proceedings in the suit must 
 be paid by the party who has occasioned them, whatever 
 may be the result of the suit; as the costs of making 
 parties defendants to a bill of revivor instead of co-plain- 
 tiffs {Pannell v. Hurley, 2 Coll. 241); or of making an 
 infant defendant instead of plaintiff' in a legatee's suit 
 {Hosking v. Nicliolls, IF. §■ C. C. C. 478) ; or of an 
 
 * Misjoinder is no longer a ground for dismissal (15 & 16 Vict. e. 86, 
 s. 49). 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 79 
 
 useless inquiry ( Jrc5foye7- v. Chapman, 1 Coll. 181). A 
 plaintiiF who enters into evidence of facts clearly admitted 
 by the answer, must pay the costs of such evidence, 
 though he succeeds in the suit {Booth v. Booth, 1 Beav. 
 130 ; Farrow v. Rees, 4 Beav. 18 ; Audsley v. Horn, 
 26 Beav. 195); so if a defendant disclaims, and the 
 plaintiff vexatiously replies to his answer {Williams v. 
 Longfelloto, 3 Ath. 582) ; or if the plaintiff vexatiously 
 requires a further answer to the amended bill {Cocks 
 T. Stanley, 6 fV. R. 45); but not unless the objection 
 is taken by the answer itself (ibid.). By Stat. 21 & 
 22 Yict. c. 27, s. 7, in any case in which all parties to a 
 suit are competent to make admissions, a party refusing 
 or neglecting to admit any document upon notice to do 
 so, must pay the costs of proving it ; and no costs of 
 proving any document are allowed, unless notice to admit 
 it has been given. And as to the costs of impertinent 
 matter, and affidavits, &c., of unnecessary length, see 40 
 Cons. Ord. rr. 9,11; and post, ch. vii. 
 
 It seems that, notwithstanding the opinion expressed by The costs 
 V. C. Wigram in Mounsey v. Burnham, 1 Ha. 22, the abandoned 
 Court will, at the hearing, order the plaintiff to pay the ty amend- 
 costs occasioned by allegations struck out by amendment be obtained 
 ( Stewart v. Stewart, 22 Beav. 393 ; Leather Cloth Com- f ^^? 
 
 . nearing, 
 
 pany v. Bressey, 3 Giff. 474). But a defendant is not smibk. 
 justified in entering into evidence with regard to charges 
 against him struck out by amendment, and will be liable 
 for the costs of such evidence being taken {Stewart v. 
 Stewart, loc. cit.) 
 
 However, the rule, by which the Court visits the costs A party 
 
 « T ,1,11 does not 
 
 of unnecessary proceedings upon the party who has lose his 
 
 occasioned them, is not carried to the extent of depriving fo^'s 
 
 a successful plaintiff or defendant of his costs, because the Court 
 
 the decision of the Court goes upon a part only of the gp^^g^^X 
 
 case, or defence put forward. ' Although the plaintiff's of the 
 
 case might have been much narrowed, yet we must re- ^°^ 
 
 member that is often impossible for a plaintiff to know forward. 
 
80 COSTS or A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 what will be the particular views or facts which will most 
 influence the opinion of the Court ' (per L. J. Knight 
 Bruce, Perry v. SMpway, ^ De G. ^ J. 353). And in 
 Wheatley v. Bastow, 3 W. R. 296, 19 Jur. 222, though 
 the relief was given on a different equity from that on 
 which it was sought, yet the former being apparent on 
 the bill and evidence, V. C. Stuart gave the plaintiff his 
 costs. In like manner, where the defendant takes several 
 grounds of defence, some of which only are valid, that 
 circumstance will not in general avail the plaintiff in 
 costs {Clowes V. Beck, 2 De G. M. 8f G. 731) ; but secus 
 where the defendant vexatiously raises an issue of fact 
 which fails on the evidence [ibid.); see Jones v. Farrell, 
 I Be G. Sf J. 208 ; fFriffht v. Howard, 1 S. Sf S. 205 ; 
 Bower v. Cooper, 2 Ha. 408 ; Pledge v. Buss, Johns. 
 663. And a plaintiff cannot, by raising a minor and 
 quite subsidiary point, relieve himself of the costs of the 
 suit if he fails on the main and substantial question 
 [Baldwyn v. Johnson, Beames, app. 8 ; Mayor of South 
 Molton V. Attorney General, 5 Ho. Lds. Ca. 1). 
 "Wtere the The circumstance that the institution of a suit has been 
 been Suggested by the Court is no protection to an unsuccess- 
 
 i-ficom- fui plaintiff against costs (Scott v. Dunbar, 1 Moll. 442, 
 
 mended by ■, ^ c•^■ c ^ ^ ^^^ 
 
 the Court, Avhere the lilmg oi the bill was suggested by the House 
 of Lords) ; and see Earl Nelson v. Lord Bridport, 10 
 Beav. 305, where the suit was recommended by a Master 
 in the course of an earlier one. In Attorney General v. 
 Dean ^ Canons of Windsor, 8 Ho. Lds. Ca. 369, 404, an 
 ex officio information, filed in consequence of an address 
 from the House of Commons, was therefore dismissed 
 
 or the without costs. A fortiori a defendant does not escape 
 
 hafaeted ^°®*^ because he has acted on counsel's opinion {Maling v. 
 
 on ^ Hill, 1 Cox, 186; M' Queen v. Farquhar, 11 Ves. 467; 
 
 opiXn'" Boulton V. Beard, 3 De G. M. 8f G. 608). 
 
 The costs of particular defendants are often disposed of 
 on considerations other than those affecting the costs of 
 the suit generally. A disclaiming defendant, if brought 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 81 
 
 to the hearing, will be dismissed* with or without costs, As to the 
 
 according to the form and extent of his disclaimer. The particular 
 
 rules of the Court on this point are thus stated by Sir J. defen- 
 
 Romilly, INI. B., in Ford y. Lord Chesterfield, 16 Beav. i. Defen- 
 
 516. First, where a defendant disclaims in such a manner diints dis- 
 
 claimmg. 
 
 as to show that he never had and never claimed an interest The rules 
 at or after the filing of the bill, then he is entitled to his ^Jf't^'i ™ 
 
 . » ' . . Ford T. 
 
 costs ; secondly, if a defendant having an interest shows Lord 
 that he disclaimed or offered to disclaim before the j^^^ ^^' 
 institution of the suit, there also he is entitled to his 
 costs ; thirdly, where a defendant having an interest allows 
 himself to be made a party to the suit, and does not dis- 
 claim, or offer to disclaim, before he puts in his answer or 
 disclaimer, in that case he is not entitled to costs. These 
 rules were approved of by V. C. Wood in Bellamy v. 
 Brickenden, A K. S^ J- 670 ; and compare the dicta of 
 V. C. Wigram in Tipping v. Power, 1 Ha. 405, 408. 
 They may be illustrated by a great variety of cases. 
 
 In Ohrly v. Jenkins, I Be G. Sf S. 543, the defendant The first 
 omitted to say that he never claimed, and was, therefore, 
 dismissed without costs. And see further as to the first 
 ride. Vale v. Meredith, 18 Jur. 992 ; Beddoes v. Pugh, 
 26 Beav. 418; Gabriel v. Sturgis, 5 Ha. 97. In Bellamy 
 V. Brickenden, A K. ^ J. 670, it was held that the dis- The dis- 
 claimer of a devisee related back to the date at which the g, devisee. 
 estate passed to him, and was a disclaimer ab initio ; and 
 the defendant was consequently held to be entitled to his 
 costs, even though the plaintiff had written to his solicitors 
 before suit to know whether he claimed an interest, and 
 received no answer; and see Higgins v. Frankis, 15 Jur. 
 277. In Buchanan v. Greenway, 11 Beav. 58, however, 
 a devisee disclaiming did not get his costs. 
 
 As to the second rule laid down in Ford v. Lord The second 
 
 rule. 
 
 * But, it seems, a decree of foreclosure may be made against disclaiming 
 defendants {Collins v. Shirley, \B.^M. 638 ; FerUn t. Stafford, 10 Sim. 
 562 ; Ablett v. Edwards, ibid. n. ; Johnson v. Clarke, 3 W. B. 193). 
 
 G 
 
rule, 
 
 82 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Chesterfield, see Loch v. Lomas, 15 Jur. 162 ; Thompson 
 V. Kendall, 9 Sim. 397 ; Ward v. Shaheshaft, 1 Z)?". §• 5'. 
 269. In the last case the assignee of a mortgagor, having 
 been made defendant to a foreclosure biU, before appear- 
 ance disclaimed by letter, and offered to be dismissed, 
 and he was held to be entitled to his costs. But it is not 
 sufficient allegation to say that the defendant was applied 
 to before suit, and did ' not refuse ' to disclaim (^Harrison v. 
 Pennell, 4 Jur. n. s. 682, &W.R.7\2); or to say that, if 
 the plaintiff, in a foreclosure suit, had applied to the de- 
 fendants, they would have released the equity of redemp- 
 tion {Collins V. Shirley, 1 R. Sf M. 638 ; Ford v. Lord 
 Chesterfield, loc. cit. ; Ford v. White, 16 Beav. 120) ; but 
 see contra, Gurney v. Jackson, ISm. 8f G. 97, a case which 
 is irreconcilable with those mentioned above. 
 The third As to the third of the rules stated above, see Hiorns v. 
 Holtom, 16 Jur. 1077, 16 Beav. 259 ; Talbot v. Kemshead, 
 AK.^J. 93 ; Davies v. TVJiitmore, 28 Beav. 617. Persons 
 properly made defendants to a suit, and disclaiming, should 
 offer to have the bill dismissed as against them without 
 costs ( Talbot v. Kemshead, loc. cit. ; Davies v. Whitmore, 
 loc. cit.) ; and if they do so, and the plaintiff continues them 
 on the record, the course is to dismiss the bill as against 
 them without costs up to the filing of the answer, but 
 with costs subsequently incurred {^Davies v. Whitmore, 
 loc. cit. ; Gowing v. Mowbray, 2 N. R. 384, U W. R. 851). 
 It makes no difference that the defendant has previously 
 disclaimed by letter (^Gowing v. Mowbray, loc. cit.); but 
 see Ward v. Shaheshaft, 1 Dr. §• Sm.. 269. In Dillon v. 
 Ashwin, 3 N. R. 359, a defendant to a foreclosure suit, 
 who assigned pendente lite, and offered to be dismissed 
 without costs up to the date of notice of the assignment, 
 received his subsequent costs. The plaintiff is not bound 
 to ask the defendant's consent to the bill being dismissed 
 against him without costs, but it rests with the defendant 
 to offer it ( Talbot v. Kemshead, loc. cit. ; Furber v. 
 Furber, 30 Beav. 513). 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 83 
 
 Formerly an exception was made in favour of a pro- No 
 visional assignee in insolvency disclaiming by answer, and f^ fe^™ 
 he was allowed his costs {Peahe v. Gibbon, 2 E. Sf M. °^. W°- 
 354 ; Woodward v. Haddon, 4 Sim. 606 ; Boswell v. ^^'™* 
 
 Tucker, 1 Beav. 493; Wearing v. Count, 6 Sim. 439): 
 but those cases were overruled in Appleby v. Duke, 1 i%. 
 272, affirming s. c. 1 ^a. 303, Hunter v. Pa^e, iJic?. 307, 
 n., and Cash v. Belcher, ibid. 310 ; and that decision was 
 followed in Clarke v. Wilmot, 1 PA. 276 ; Staffurth v. 
 Po«, 2 De G.Sf S. 571 ; Gran^ v. Allen, 3 Jwr. 840 ; and 
 Griggs v. Sturgis, 5 2fa. 93. 
 
 In Glover v. Rogers, 11 Jwr. 1000, 17 i. J", n. s. ch. 2, When a 
 it was held not to be necessary that a disclaiming de- ing de^n- 
 fendant shoidd prove the facts upon which his disclaimer ^^^} ""^y 
 is based; and in Hurst v. Hurst, 1 W. R. 105, the e^dence. 
 question whether such defendant is entitled to go into 
 evidence was left undecided. If, however, the plaintiff 
 files replication to his answer, and the defendant is thereby 
 compelled to go into evidence, the plaintiff must pay his 
 costs {Ford v. Lord Chesterfield, 16 Beav. 516); and see 
 Williams v. Longfellow, 3 Atk. 581. Where the bill 
 prayed for the costs of the suit against a defendant who 
 disclaimed, and stated certain facts as to his not being made 
 to pay costs, the plaintiff was held to be justified in entering 
 into evidence contra, and the defendant was ordered to 
 pay the costs of the suit {Deacon v. Deacon, 7 Sim. 378). 
 
 If a party is unnecessarily made a defendant to the ii. Persona 
 suit, although he may have an interest in the subject- gar^*^^^" 
 matter of it, he will be entitled to his costs from the made de- 
 plaintiff; as where a residuary legatee was made defendant 
 to a creditor's suit, there being a bequest in trust for pay- 
 ment of debts {Smith v. Andrews, 4: W. R. 353); or a 
 certificated bankrupt was made defendant (Pannell v. 
 Hurley, 2 Coll. 241). On the other hand, the costs 
 occasioned by an heiress-at-law, who was not a necessary 
 party, being made a co-plaintiff, including the costs of 
 making out her pedigree, were ordered to be paid by the 
 
 o 2 
 
84 COSTS OF A SUIT GENEEALLY. 
 
 plaintiffs {Pearce v. Watkins, 5 De G. &; Sm. 315). 
 Where the bill prayed alternative relief, and on the 
 view adopted by the Court certain defendants were un- 
 necessary parties, they were dismissed with costs {Bradley 
 V. Heath, 3 Sim. 560). A plaintiff is not justified in 
 making persons parties merely because other defendants 
 insist that they ought to be parties ; and persons made 
 defendants under those circumstances, the Court being 
 of opinion that they were not necessary parties, were dis- 
 missed with costs ( Williams v. Page, 24 JBeav. 655). 
 In Williams v. Williams, 17 Jur. 434, 1 W. E. 237, 
 persons interested under a will, but unnecessarily made 
 parties to a suit for administration of the estate, were 
 ordered to bear their own costs, they not having objected 
 to being made parties in their answer or at the hearing. 
 If a person improperly made a defendant claims an 
 interest by his answer, the bill may be dismissed as 
 against him at the hearing, but without costs {Eandall 
 V. Eandall, 4 L. J. ch. 50). Where defendants, by 
 decree declared to be unnecessary parties, remained 
 before the Court, and attended the enquiries under the 
 decree, their costs subsequent to decree were ordered to 
 be borne by themselves (Girdlestone v. Creed, 1 W. 
 E. 228). A party made defendant for purposes of 
 discovery, but who is a mere witness, will be dismissed 
 with costs (i>e Combe v. _De COmbe, 3 Jur. n. s. 712). 
 iii. Formal ''Where no account, payment, conveyance, or other 
 relief is sought against a party, but the plaintiff requires 
 such party to appear to or answer the bill, the costs 
 occasioned by the plaintiff having required such party so 
 to appear to or answer the bill, and the costs of all pro- 
 ceedings consequent thereon, shall be paid by the plaintiff, 
 unless the Court shall otherwise direct.' (40 Cons. Ord. 
 r. 16). See Abram v. Ward, 6 Ha. 170, where de- 
 fendants in the same interest as the plaintiffs, but who had 
 refused to join as co-plaintiffs, were allowed their costs 
 under this order. And as to formal parties generally, see 
 
 parties. 
 
COSTS OP THE SUIT. 85 
 
 Archer \. Roleston, 2 Moll. 464. In Topham v. Duke 
 of Portland, 3 N. JR. 183, the trustees of a settlement 
 made on the plaintiff's marriage, who were necessary 
 parties to the suit, were held not to be entitled to their 
 costs from their co-defendants who paid the plaintiff's 
 costs, but were allowed them out of their trust estate. 
 And see as to parties made, defendants for discovery 
 only, post, ch. iv. sec. v. 
 
 A defendant's answer, though not e-^ddence in the cause. What 
 may be read by himself on the question of costs ( Van- ^"^^g® 
 couver \. Bliss, W Ves. 458; Howell v. George, 1 Mad. used as to 
 13); but not the answers of co-defendants against each 
 other ( Chewett v. Jones, 6 Mad. 267). It is not, however, i. Answer. 
 sufficient to state a tender in the answer ; the tender must 
 be proved (^Milnes v. Davison, 3 Mad. 374). The answer 
 of a peer upon his protestation of honour may be read as 
 to costs {Dawson v. Ellis, 1 Jac. §• W. 524). Although ii. Letters. 
 letters written ' without prejudice,' with a ^dew to the 
 compromise of the suit, are not generally admissible in 
 e'sidence {Hoghton v. Hoghton, 15 Beav. 321), they may 
 be read on the question of costs ( Woodard v. Eastern 
 Counties Raihoay Company, 1 Jur. n. s. 899 ; Williams v. 
 Thomas, 2 Dr. Sf Sm. 29, 37); and, semble, though not 
 referred to in the pleadings (Malcolm v. Scott, 3 Ha. 39), 
 notwithstanding Whitley v. Martin, 3 Beav. 226, where the 
 marginal note goes too far (per V. C. Wigram, 3 Ha. 63). 
 Where the costs of the suit are disposed of on further iii- Affi- 
 consideration, the Court will not look at the evidence 
 given in chambers, or on interlocutory application, or, in 
 fact, at any evidence but that in the cause ( Curling v. 
 Austen, 10 W. R. 682). In Dunstan v. Patterson, 2 Ph. 
 341, at the hearing of a motion an immediate decree was 
 taken for an account and costs, and further directions 
 were reserved ; and it was held that affidavits filed on the 
 motion could not be read on further directions as to costs. 
 The Court will not receive, under Stat. 13 & 14 Vict. 
 c. 35, s. 28, afiidavits as to conduct filed with reference 
 
86 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENEKALLY. 
 
 Costs in 
 the cause, 
 how and 
 by whom 
 payable. 
 
 Contri- 
 bution 
 amongst 
 defen- 
 dants. 
 
 to costs {Bateman v. Margerison, 2 W. R. 607 •; Evans 
 Y. Lewis, 2 L. T. n. s. 559); but see contra, Fallows v. 
 Lord Dillon, 2 W. R. 507, 23 L. T. 154. 
 
 The Court will not order costs in a cause to be paid 
 without taxation even by consent {King v. King, 1 Jur. 
 n. s. 972). 
 
 Where several co-plaintiffs or co-defendants are ordered 
 to pay costs, they become jointly and severally liable 
 {Poole V. Franks, 1 Moll. 78 ; Meredith v. Hughes, 3 Yo. 
 §• J. 188 ; Ex parte Bishop, 8 Ves. 333); and, therefore, 
 where a decree has been made reserving costs, the de- 
 fendants are entitled to a continued representation of all 
 the original plaintiffs, though not necessary parties, as a 
 security {Blackburn v. Jepson, 3 Swans. 138). Assignees 
 of any party to the suit adopting it become liable to the 
 costs of it from the commencement ( WTiitcomh v. Minchin, 
 5 Mad. 91 ; Poole v. Franks, loc. cit); so, also, a next 
 friend appointed in the course of the suit. In a tithes 
 suit the Court, in decreeing an account and payment, may 
 apportion the costs where the defendants have several 
 defences {Esdaile v. Peacock, Johns. 216; and see Wolley 
 v. Brownhill, 13 Price, 511); but secus where there is 
 a common defence {Esdaile v. Peacock, loc. cit. ; Lloyd 
 V. Mackworth, 2 Gwill. 646, correcting s. c. Bunb. 138). 
 But the Court will not in general give directions in the 
 decree for contribution by the defendants inter se; or 
 after a general decree for costs entertain an application 
 in the suit by one defendant, who has been compelled to 
 pay the whole, for that purpose {Michel v. Bullen, 6 Price 
 87 ; Pitt V. Bonner, 1 Y. §•. C. C. C. 670), though such 
 application may be granted by consent, or, semble, the 
 object may be attained by separate bill {Pitt v. Bonner, 
 loc. cit.). However, in North v. Gurney, 1 Jo. §• H. 509, 
 the defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the suit 
 without prejudice to any question between them as to 
 contribution thereto, though the precise effect of such a 
 reservation is not clear. As to the cases where costs pay- 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 87 
 
 able out of a fund are paid before division or apportioned 
 on the different shares, see post, ch. iv., sec. ii. 
 
 The Court will not, except in charity suits where there No order 
 is no relator {Attorney General v. Corporation of Chester, '^^^yf' 
 14 Beav. 338), and interpleader suits {post, ch. iv., mentof 
 sec. >'ii.), directly make an order for the payment of costs between 
 between co-defendants; but that object is indirectly ^-'^^f'^"- 
 attained by ordering the costs of one defendant to be paid 
 by the plaintiff, and received back by him from another 
 defendant; see ex, gr. Blenldnsopp v. Blenkinsopp, 12 
 Beav. 568. 
 
 Where there is a fund in Court in the suit, or the Htiga- Advance 
 tion is respecting an estate vested in trustees, who are Xintiff on 
 before the Court, the Court has in some instances allowed aeeount of 
 an advance to be made to the plaintiff, if ia poverty, on 
 account, to enable him to prosecute the suit {Jones v. 
 Coxeter, 2 Atk. 399 ; Hinckley v. Appleby, 2 Cox, 409 ; 
 Per shall v. Squire, 1 Dick. 31, s. c. Beames, app. 22; 
 Dickenson v. Marie, 2 Dick. 582, s. c. Beames, app. 3), 
 especially where some heavy expense, such as the costs of 
 an action {Pershall v. Squire), or of a commission abroad 
 {Dickenson v. Marie) has to be incurred. ' But there 
 must be very special circumstances indeed to warrant an 
 advance of money for the purpose of feeding litigation ' 
 (per V. C. Leach in Tillotson v. Hargr eaves, 4 Mad. 172, 
 where the application was refused). There is no recent 
 reported case where such an application has been granted ; 
 and see Nye v. Maule, 4 My. ^ C. 342 ; Peck v. Beechey, 
 2 Sim. 40, where it was refused. 
 
 Parties representing the same interest, if they sever To whom 
 their defences, vriU not, except under special circumstances, "^^^^1' 
 be allowed separate sets of costs, but one set only between severing. 
 them {Hughes v. Key, 20 Beav. 297); though as to the 
 difficulty of laying down any precise rule, see Greedy v. 
 Lavender, 11 Beav. 411. Where one of a class of de- 
 fendants is separately charged and relief is prayed against 
 him, he is entitled to appear separately and have his costs. 
 
88 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 though such charge and the prayer for relief be struck 
 out by amendment {Shaw v. Johnson, 9 JV. R. 629). 
 Where several defendants have a joint fiduciary interest, 
 the circumstance that one of them has also a beneficial 
 interest is not a ground for their severing, unless the 
 beneficial interest conflicts with their duty {Gaunt v. 
 Taylor, 2 Beav. 346), though separate costs were for 
 special reasons allowed in that case. And generally trus- 
 tees and their cestuis-que-trust are not justified in severing 
 {Farr v. Sherife,.4 Ha. 528; Reade v. Sparhes, 1 Mol 
 8); and so with mortgagor and mortgagee {Remnant v. 
 Hood, 27 Beav. 74 ; Greedy v. Lavender, he. cit.). In 
 Aldridge v. Westbrook, 4 Beav. 212 ; Wiles v. Cooper, 9 
 Beav. 294, 299; and Russell v. Nicholls, 9 Jur. 613, 
 residence in distant parts of the country was held sufficient 
 cause for severing ; but see contra, Farr v. Sherriffe, loc. 
 cit. In Garey v. Whittingham, 5 Beav. 268, husband 
 and wife, living apart, were held entitled to one set 
 of costs only between them. If two trustees sever, 
 and one imputes misconduct to the other, the Court, 
 having no evidence but the answers, will give one set of 
 costs only, and leave the division to the taxing master 
 ( Course v. Humphrey, 26 Beav. 402 ; Attorney General 
 V. Wyville, 28 Beav. 464). But if the evidence is clear, 
 the costs will be given whoUy to the innocent trustee 
 {Webb V. Webb, 16 Sim. 55). But an allegation by one 
 trustee that he knows nothing of the accounts prayed for, 
 is not a ground for separa:te costs {Hodson v. Cash, 1 Jur. 
 n. s. 864). In Prince v. Hine (2), 27 Beav. 345, two 
 trustees, who had severed, having been ordered to pay a 
 sum of money into Court, and one of them having paid 
 the whole amount, one set of costs only was allowed, and 
 was directed to be paid to the trustee who had paid the 
 money, the other trustee's share being a contribution 
 towards that amount. An innocent trustee ought to join 
 as plaintiff in a suit to recover trust funds lent in breach 
 of trust, otherwise he will not receive any costs as de- 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 89 
 
 fendant {Hughes v. Key, 20 Beav. 397). A cestui-que- 
 trust about to file a bill should apply to his trustee to join 
 him as co-plaintifF with an indemnity; if he refuses he 
 must bear his own costs, but if he is not applied to, the 
 plaintiff must pay them {Reade v. Sparhes, 1 Moll. 8). 
 Persons not parties to the suit having liberty to attend 
 proceedings under a decree are allowed one set of costs 
 only, if they are in the same interest {Stevenson v. 
 Abington, 8 L. T. n. s. 719). 
 
 On the other hand, if one solicitor appears for two or Several 
 more defendants who make separate defences, and the bill appearing 
 is dismissed with costs as to one of them, such defendant ^y *^'= 
 will only be entitled to receive from the plaintiff the costs solicitor. 
 of the proceedings which relate exclusively to his defence, 
 and a proportionate part of the costs of the proceedings 
 taken jointly for all the defendants for whom the solicitor 
 appears {Re Colquhoun, 5 De G. 31. Sf G. 35) ; and the 
 same rule applies as between the solicitor and any one of 
 the several defendants for whom he appears (zSzW.); and 
 see Harmer v. Harris, 1 Russ. 155, 157. But the rule 
 in Re Colquhoun does not apply to the sohcitor to the 
 suitor's fee fund, appearing for a defendant at the instance 
 of the plaintifi^, and also for defendants defending in 
 forma pauperis {Frazer v. Thompson, 1 Giff. 537). 
 However, by 40 Cons. Ord. r. 12, the taxing master is 
 to consider whether two or more defendants employing 
 the same solicitor ought to have defended separately. 
 
 Where costs are directed to be paid out of a fund in Costa out 
 Court, they are, as observed above, ordered to be paid to paid to 
 the solicitors of the parties directly. Where a solicitor, solicitors. 
 by arrangement with his client, retired from the suit, and 
 another solicitor conducted it thenceforth to its conclusion, 
 it was held that the latter solicitor had priority for his 
 costs {Cormack v. Beisley, Z Be G. ^ Jo. \^1 ; and see 
 Re Barnard, 14 Beav. 18). In Prebhle v. Boghurst, 1 R. 
 &• M. 744, it was discovered after taxation that the agent 
 was not a solicitor, and the master was directed to review 
 
/ 
 
 90 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 his taxation, and disallow all items except disbursements 
 to the clerk in Court, though some of the costs were in- 
 curred at law, and the agent was an attorney ; and see 
 Coates V. Hankyard, I Jt. ^ M. 746 ; and Sumner v. 
 Ridgway, ibid. 748. 
 Costs pay- ' If the costs are payable to a partnership firm, they 
 partner-^ may be directed to be paid to one of the members of the 
 ship firm, firm, or to the members, or any or either of them, naming 
 them in the order by their Christian and surnames ; ' 
 Seton, p. 92. 
 Apportion- ^g h&ye already seen that the costs of the suit may 
 costs: be apportioned (1) with respect to time, the costs up to a 
 
 1. As to certain period being given to the plaintiff, and the subse- 
 quent costs to the defendant or vice versa (see ante, p. 65) ; 
 
 / ii-Amongst (2) with respcct to different defendants both when pay- 
 ly defendants. \i , ■, ^ / nn \ i /o\ 
 
 "^ able by and to them (see ante, p. 86, seq.) ; and (3) some 
 
 iii. With instances have been given of apportionment with respect 
 
 . to subject- to the subject-matter of the suit, as where the plaintiff or 
 
 (/ matter of defendant succeeds, but has to pay the costs occasioned by 
 
 unfounded charges of fraud, or other statements of fact 
 
 failing in the evidence, or of unnecessary evidence or 
 
 other proceedings, &c. (see ante, pp. 69, 72, 78, 79). 
 
 The same principle applies where the suit embraces more 
 
 than one object. In Dean v. Morris, 5 W. R. 345, the 
 
 costs of a suit to administer two estates vested in the 
 
 same trustees upon the same trusts were ordered to be 
 
 paid out of the two funds equally; and see the cases 
 
 where the costs are apportioned between the real and 
 
 personal estates, post, ch. Iv. sec. ii. So in Irby v. Irby, 
 
 24 Beav. 525, the costs of a suit to administer the estate 
 
 of a deceased person, and incidentally to execute the trusts 
 
 of a settlement under which he was tenant for life, were 
 
 payable, as of an administration suit, out of the assets of 
 
 the deceased ; but, so far as they were increased by its 
 
 being a suit to execute the trusts of the settlement, out of 
 
 the settled funds ; and in Stewart v. Marquis of Donegal, 
 
 2 Jo. §• Lat. 636, the costs of raising a family charge were 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 91 
 
 borne by the estate, but the costs of dealing with it when 
 raised were payable out of the fund itself; and see Boy- 
 cott V. Newman, 4 W. R. 101, 2 Jur. n. s. 702. But the The Court 
 Court is not inclined to make refined distinctions on the inclined 
 apportionment of costs, on account of the expense of nicely to 
 apportionment (Knott v. Cottee, 16 Beav. 81). And in coS!^ ^°" 
 Jones V. Farrell, 1 De G. §• J. 208, Lord Cranworth 
 held that the plaintiff ought to pay the costs of part of 
 the case, and was entitled to receive the rest ; ' but,' he 
 added, ' my experience leads me to say that such a dis- 
 tribution generally leads to a great deal of unnecessary" 
 expense to both parties, and I think the best practical 
 course is to cut the knot by saying that there shall be no 
 costs given or received ; ' and see Bower v. Cooper, 2 Ha. 
 408, 410; Tanner v. Heard, 23 Beav. 555. 
 
 Where an apportionment of costs is directed, the order Apportion- 
 may be framed in two ways. ' In one way it may be so j including 
 expressed as to involve an apportionment of the whole of proportion 
 the general charges; in the other way it may be expressed general 
 so that the exception only extends to the excess of ex- +?^^'^! ° 
 pense incurred ia consequence of the excepted matter' 
 (1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 1085). Where the exception is of ' so 
 much of the costs of the suit as,' &c. ; or the direction is 
 to ' tax the costs of the plaintiff of this suit, except so 
 far as such costs have been occasioned,' &c. ; or ' that 
 the plaintiff's bill, so far as it seeks relief on the footing, 
 &c., be dismissed with costs,' the general charges are 
 apportionable ; see Heighington v. Grant, 1 Beav. 230 ; 
 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 1085, 1086, and the MS. cases there 
 cited; and Seton, p. 88, forms 10, 11, 12. On the other ii. not in- 
 hand, a direction to 'tax the costs of the plaintiff (or anyp^artof 
 defendant) of this cause, except so far as such costs have the general 
 
 ^ -.. . charges. 
 
 been increased by,' &c., followed by a direction ' to tax 
 the costs of the defendant (or plaintiff) so far only as 
 the same have been increased by,' &c. {Seton, p. 89, 
 form 13); or an order dismissing ' so much of the infor- 
 mation as seeks,' &c., without costs, and directing that 
 
92 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Set-off: 
 i. under 
 same 
 order. 
 
 ii. Under 
 different 
 orders in 
 the same 
 suit. 
 
 the defendant should pay to the informant ' his costs of 
 the suit' {Attorney General v. Lord Carrington, 6 Beav. 
 454) ; or a direction for the defendant to pay to the plain- 
 tiff' so much of the costs as have been occasioned by/ &c , 
 {Morris v. Simmons, 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 1086, n. 7) does 
 not involve an apportionment of the general charges. 
 
 Where the costs of the suit have been apportioned so 
 that costs are payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, 
 and also by the defendant to the plaintiff, the practice is 
 to direct the one set of costs to be set off against the 
 other, and the balance only to be paid ; see forms of orders 
 to that effect in Seton, pp. 88, 89. And vi^here money is 
 payable by defendant to the plaintiff, and costs are 
 directed to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, or 
 vice versa, the costs may be set off against the money ; see 
 Seton, pp. 89, 90 ; Cooper v. Pitcher, 5 Ha. 485 ; and the 
 cases occurring in administration suits cited post, ch. iv. 
 sec. ii. But costs will not be set off against sums due on 
 an unascertained account ( Whalley v. Ramadge, 8 L. T. 
 n. s. 499). In Wright v. Chard, 4 Drew. 702, where the 
 bill was dismissed with costs as against husband and wife, 
 defending jointly, so far as it charged the wife's separate 
 estate, and other payments were directed to be made by 
 the husband, it was held that the costs being payable on 
 the husband's sole receipt (see post, ch. vi. sec. ix.) a 
 set-off arose. Costs payable under different orders in the 
 same suit may also be set off against each other. In 
 Bryon v. Saloon Omnibus Company, 4 Drew. 546, the 
 plaintiff had been ordered to pay the costs of a motion 
 in the cause refused, and subsequently the defendant 
 had to pay to the plaintiff other costs ; execution having 
 previously issued for the first set of costs, it was held on 
 motion that the defendants were entitled to a set-off on 
 their undertaking not to levy more than the balance. 
 In Cattell v. Simons, 6 Beav. 304, costs ordered by the 
 Master of the EoUs to be paid by the plaintiff to the 
 defendant were ordered, on motion before the Master 
 
COSTS OF THE SUIT. 93 
 
 of tHe Rolls, to be set off against costs ordered by the 
 Lord Chancellor to be paid by the defendant to the 
 plaintiif. Costs payable in two suits in Chancery, in iii. In two 
 "which the same estate is being administered, may also ^^^'e 
 be ordered to be set off one against the other {Lee v. 
 Pain, 4 Ha. 255). But where there are proceedings iv. but 
 both at law and in equity for the same matter, and costs ^t'law and 
 become payable in both, the costs in equity cannot be in equity, 
 set off against the costs at law {Holworthy v. Mortlock, 
 1 Cox, 202, 2 Bro. C. C. 17 ; Collett v. Preston, 15 Beav. 
 458) ; even though the suit in equity is a mere bill of dis- 
 covery in aid of the defence to an action at law ( Gabet v. 
 Chayter, Beames, app. 13 ; Wright v. Mudie, I S. Sj- S. 
 266) ; notwithstandiag Lord Hardwick's opinion in Garish 
 V. Donovan, 2 Atk. 166. 
 
 After a decree was passed, the Court refused on petition Where 
 to give a defendant, whose costs were accidentally omitted acciden-^ 
 from the decree, his costs of the suit, although he was a *'^^y 
 mere trustee and would have been entitled to them from the 
 ( Colman v. Sarell, 2 Cox, 206). In Armstrong v. Storer, "i^™^^- 
 (2) 27 Beav. 471, the costs of certain parties were 
 ordered to be paid out of a fund, previous to its distribu- 
 tion, to a firm of soKcitors, who had acted for them since 
 1840, but were not their solicitors on the record; another 
 firm who had acted till 1840 and had not been changed, 
 having had no notice till the fund was distributed, obtained 
 on petition an order for the payment of their costs by the 
 beneficiaries. As to the means of recovering costs re- 
 served till the hearing, and then omitted to be disposed of, 
 see ante, pp. 33, 34. 
 
 It is now settled that, contrary to the former practice A cause 
 {Roberts v. Roberts, 1 S. ^ S.Z2; Gibson v. Lord Crauley, heard on 
 6 Mad. 365 ; Whalley v. Lord Suffield, 12 Beav. 402) a ^^^^^^l^' 
 suit may, where every other question has been dis- costs alone. 
 posed of, be brought to a hearing, and heard on the 
 question of costs alone {Kelly v. Hooper, \ Y. ^ C. C. C. 
 197 ; Fradella v. Weller, 2 R. &f M. 247 ; Burgess v. 
 
94 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 What are 
 costs in 
 the cause. 
 
 Costs of 
 
 to on 
 minutes. 
 
 Where the 
 
 plaintiff 
 
 makes 
 
 default 
 
 at the 
 
 hearing. 
 
 Where the 
 defendant 
 makes 
 default. 
 
 Hills, 26 Beav. 244; Burgess v. Hately, ibid. 249; 
 Morgan v. Great Eastern Railway Company, I H. 8f M. 
 78). But the plaintiff should not bring the cause to a 
 hearing, without first applying for the defendant's consent 
 to have the costs disposed of on motion ; see ante, p. 52. 
 
 As to what costs are included ia the costs of the cause, 
 see ' Costs of Pleas and Demurrers,' ante, p. 18 ; ' Costs 
 of Amendment of Bill,' ante, p. 24 ; ' Costs of Exceptions,' 
 ante, p. 27 ; ' Costs of Interlocutory Applications,' ante, 
 p. 31 ; ' Taxation of Costs,' post, ch. vii. The costs of 
 speaking to the cause on minutes may also be included in 
 the costs of the cause. ' If there is a fair ground for the 
 application, the costs are usually made costs in the cause ; 
 and if the cause has been put into the paper, the date of 
 the decree may be brought forward so as to include the 
 costs of the day.' — Seton, p. 1142. But a party moving 
 to vary the minutes as settled by the Registrar does so at 
 his own peril as to costs (^Prince v. Howard, 14 Beav. 208). 
 
 If the plaintiff does not appear when the cause is 
 called on, the defendant, on producing befo;re the rising 
 of the Cotirt an office copy of an affidavit of having 
 been served with a subpoena to hear judgment, is entitled 
 to have the bill dismissed as against him with costs ; but 
 if the affidavit is not produced, the cause is merely struck 
 out of the paper {Beames, 236 ; 1 Smith's Ch. Br. 668 ; 
 Ellis v. King, 5 Mad, 21). In Rogers v. Goore, 17 Ves. 
 130, it was held that a plaintiff under an undertaking 
 to speed was in the same position as if he had served a 
 subpoena, and the bill was dismissed with costs though 
 no subpoena had been served. 
 
 In the same way, if a defendant makes default, and the 
 plaintiff cannot produce an affidavit of service, the cause 
 is struck out of the paper ; but if the defendant has been 
 served, the practice is to hear the cause and give the 
 plaintiff such decree as he may appear entitled to 
 (Hakewell v. Webber, 9 Ha, 541 ; Browne v. Smith, 5 
 Jur. 1195); and see notes to 23 Cons. Ord. r. 12, in 
 
COSTS IN CHAMBERS. 95 
 
 MorgarCs Ch. Acts and Orders. And it seems that an 
 undertaking by the other party's solicitor to appear is 
 not equivalent to service of a subpoena so as to entitle the 
 party setting down the cause to a decree {Ellis v. King, 
 5 Mad. 21). 
 
 Section IX. — Costs of Proceedings in Chambers. 
 
 ' Parties attending any proceeding in Chambers, without 40 C. 0. 
 having obtained the previous leave of the Judge to attend ^' ' 
 the same, shall not be allowed any costs of such attend- 
 ance, unless by special order of the Court or Judge,' (40 
 Cons. Ord. r. 28). And see post, ch. iv., sec. ii. 
 
 ' The costs of counsel attending the Judge in Chambers 40 C. 0. 
 shall not in any case be allowed, unless the Judge certifies 
 it to be a proper case for counsel to attend ' (40 Cons. 
 Ord. r. 29). 
 
 Where a summons from Chambers is adjourned into Where a 
 Court, the Court is to be understood to certify that it is a jg 
 proper case to be heard by counsel, unless the contrary is adjourned 
 stated ( GreDz'/Ze v. Greville, 8 W. R. 130, 5 Jur. n. s. 
 1237 ; Graham v. Graham, Johns. 524). Whenever the 
 case is adjourned from Chambers, costs are reserved with- 
 out express direction ( Wallis v. Bastard, 2 W. R. 47 ; 
 and see Leeds v. Lewis, 3 Jur. n. s. 1290 ; Dicker v. 
 Hamer, 2 L. T. n. s. 276). Where a summons was 
 adjourned iato Court at the suggestion of all parties, 
 which ought to have been brought before the Judge per- 
 sonally in Chambers, V. C. Stuart not only did not make 
 the party taking out the summons, who entirely failed, 
 pay costs, but gave him £5 for costs (Halliley v. 
 Henderson, 4 Jur. n. s. 202). 
 
 ' Where a proceeding in Chambers fails by reason of the Where 
 non-attendance of any party, and the Judge does not not attend. 
 think fit to proceed ex parte, the Judge may order such 
 an amount of costs (if any) as he shall think reasonable 
 
96 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENEEALLT. 
 
 to be paid to the party attending by the absent party or 
 by his solicitor personally ' (40 Cons. Ord. r. 31). 
 
 The costs of a summons taken out and abandoned must 
 be paid by the party taking it out {Lister v. Bell, 5 Jur. 
 n. s. 115). 
 
 As to the costs of creditors proving their claims in 
 Chambers, see 40 Cons. Ord. r. 24, and post, ch. iv., 
 sec. ii. As to the costs of members of a class or next of 
 claims, &c. kin proving their titles in Chambers, see post, ibid. As 
 to the costs of a purchaser in a sale under a decree, see 
 post, ch. v., sec. xii. And as to certifying for counsel, 
 and the costs of proceedings under the Winding-up Acts, 
 see post, ch. v., sec. v. 
 
 Aban- 
 doned 
 summons. 
 
 Costs of 
 
 creditors, 
 
 &c. 
 
 proving 
 
 their 
 
 Deposit to 
 be made 
 on pre- 
 senting a 
 petition of 
 appeal or 
 rehearing, 
 
 and under- 
 taking to 
 be given. 
 
 Deposit a 
 security 
 for costs. 
 
 Section X. — Costs of Rehearings and Appeals. 
 
 'Where any person appeals from a decree or order 
 made on the original hearing of a cause, or on further 
 consideration, or obtains a rehearing of a cause, the per- 
 son so appealing or obtaining such rehearing shall deposit 
 in the hands of the registrar the sum of £20, to be paid 
 to the opposite party where the decree or order is not 
 varied in any material point, together with the further 
 taxed costs occasioned by the appeal or rehearing, unless 
 the Court shall otherwise direct' (31 Cons. Ord. r. 4). 
 
 The petitioner or his solicitor must also subscribe the 
 petition of appeal, consenting to pay such costs as the 
 Court shall think fit to award in respect of the proceed- 
 ings (if any) had since the decree. But this undertaking 
 extends only to costs incurred in the prosecution of the 
 decree, and not to the costs of the appeal {Price v. 
 Dewhurst, 4 My. §• Cr. 285). The deposit is merely a se- 
 curity for costs, and will be returned where the appeal is 
 dismissed without costs, unless there is a special order to 
 the contrary {Dell v. Barlow, 2 R. &^ M. 686 ; and see 
 
COSTS OF KEHEAEINGS AND APPEALS. 97 
 
 Rattenhury v. Fenton, C. P. C. temp. Brougham, 435). 
 A pauper may be allowed to appeal without making the 
 deposit {Bradberry x. Brooke, 4 IV. R. 699 ; Clarke v. 
 Wyburn, 12 Jur. 167; and Heaps v. Commissioners of 
 Churches, ibid, n.) ; but semble not without a certificate 
 of counsel that there are very special grounds of appeal 
 {Grimioood v. Shave, 5 W. R. 482). An original and 
 supplemental cause are considered as one cause only for 
 the purpose of the appeal (Cotoper v. Scott, 1 JEden, 17). 
 In case of an appeal petition from an interlocutory order Not 
 no deposit is requisite {Richards v. Platel, Cr. §• Ph. 7 9). on^appeal 
 See further as to the practice in setting down causes for f™™ ^^^^' 
 
 lociitorv 
 
 rehearing, 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 720, seq. ; Seton, 1136, seq. order. 
 
 A party presenting a petition of appeal to the House Eecogni- 
 of Lords is required, by the standing orders of the House, te entered 
 within eight days, in English causes, after the appeal has °° 'jppeal 
 been received, to give security to the Clerk of the Parlia- House of 
 ment by recognisance to the Crown, of the penalty of ■'^°^'^- 
 £400, as Security for costs ; otherwise the appeal stands 
 dismissed (^MacqueerCs Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, 
 p. 143). Ko recognisance is required from the Attorney 
 General, Lord Advocate, or other officer of the Crown 
 suing on behalf of the Crown {Lord Advocate v. Lord 
 Dunglas, 9 CI. §• F. 173); nor from persons suing in 
 forma pauperis {Macq. 150). The House may, on special 
 motion, permit a substitute to enter into recognisance in- 
 stead of the appellant ; and it seems that evidence of the 
 solvency of the substitute will be required, though not 
 of the appellant himself (ikfaej'. 148). 
 
 "WTiere the appeal is dismissed, and the decree appealed Costs of 
 from is affirmed, the costs of the appeal as a general rule dismissed 
 follow the result, both in the Court of Appeal in Chancery ^^^^J^^j^^ 
 {Borton v. Dunbar, 9 W. R. 41 ; M'Calmont v. Rankin, result: 
 2 De G. M. §• G. 426) ; and also in the House of Lords 
 {Steioart v. Menzies, 8 CI. §• F. 309), though the Court 
 or the House disapproves of the respondent's conduct 
 (iW Calmont v. Rankin, loc. cit. ; Clarke v. Hart, 6 Ho^ 
 
 H 
 
telow. 
 
 98 COSTS OF A SUIT GENEKALLT. 
 
 especially Xrfs. Ca. 633, 661). And where two Judges have sue- 
 there hare cessively decided against a party who appeals to the House 
 been two ^f Lords, it is almost of course to give costs on affirmance 
 
 similar * -^ t- \ 
 
 decisions of the decree (^Richards v. Attorney General, 9 Jur. 383) ; 
 even although the Judges below gave diiferent reasons for 
 their judgments {ibid.). But see contra, Sayer v. Bradly, 5 
 Ho. Lds. Ca. 873, 905 ; and in Prendergast v. Prendergast, 
 3 Ho. Lds. Ca. 195, 225, an appeal, on a point of con- 
 struction, was dismissed after two previous decisions the 
 same way, and the costs were allowed out of the estate. 
 The circumstance that the Appeal Court proceeds on 
 different reasons from the Court below, will not alone save 
 the costs of the appeal ( Cradock v. Piper, 1 Mac. 8f G. 
 684) ; the appeal being from the decree or order made, not 
 the judgment {ibid.). But where an appeal has been re- 
 appeal is commended or suggested by the Court below, no costs 
 
 recom- y^i j^ general be given on affirmance of the decree (Re 
 mended by o o \ 
 
 the Court Colquhoun, 5 De G. M. §• G. 35). There is no rule in 
 below. ^jjg House of Lords that an appeal shall be. dismissed 
 
 Where two ^ ^ 
 
 Courts without costs, where the case has gone through two Courts 
 siven con-^ below, and confficting decisions have been given {Nottidge 
 flicting V. Pritchard, 8 Bl. n. s. 493, 2 CI. §• F. 379 ; Clarke 
 V. Hart, 6 Ho. Lds. Ca. 633, 661), in both of which cases 
 the appeal was under such circumstances dismissed with 
 Where costs. But if there is a difference of opinion amongst 
 difference ^^ Lords ( Wing V. Angram, 8 Ho. Lds. Ca, 183 ; Simp- 
 ofopmion gQ.yi y_ Westminster Palace Hotel Company, ibid. 712; 
 
 amongst j. j ^ 
 
 the judges Monypenny v. Monypenny, 9 Ho. Lds. Ca. 114, 149) and 
 Comt of " fortiori if they are equally divided {Baker v. Lee, 7 Jur. 
 Appeal. n, s. 1), it is usual on dismissing the appeal to give no 
 costs. But there is no rule to that effect {Hopkinson v. 
 Rolt, 9 Ho. Lds. Ca. 555). In that case the appeal was 
 dismissed. Lord Cranworth dissentiente, with costs. In 
 Re Clarke, 1 De G. M. §• G. 43, where the Lords Justices 
 differed, the appeal was dismissed with costs, on the 
 ground that their lordships' difference of opinion was not 
 as to the correctness of the decision below on the materials 
 
COSTS OF REHEARINGS AND APPEALS. 99 
 
 before the Court, but as to whether the appellant should 
 
 have an opportunity of further investigation. But the 
 
 iisual course vi^hen the Lords Justices differ, is to affirm 
 
 the decree appealed from without costs {King v. King, 1 
 
 -De G. ,5)- J. 663, 674). And, generally, notwithstanding Exception 
 
 the rule as stated above, where there is a fair question to '^°^^ , 
 
 general 
 
 be raised, or a difficult point of construction, the Lords rule in 
 Justices Avill dismiss the appeal without costs ; see ex. gr. ^^^° 
 Bogs V. Bradbj, 4 De G. M. ^- G. 58 ; Hodgson v. difficulty. 
 Smithson, 26 L. J. ch. 110 ; Vickers v. Bell, 3 N. R. 624. 
 But in the House of Lords the rule appears to be more 
 strict : see the cases cited above. However, in Wilson v. 
 Wilson, 5 Ho. Lds. Ca. 40, 71, Lord St. Leonard's seems 
 to have thought that the appellant might have escaped 
 without costs, there being a question of real difficulty, 
 had he not insisted on what he knew was not an honest 
 or fair construction of his contract. And see Sayer v. 
 Bradly, 5 Ho. Lds. Ca. 873, 905, where, in a case of 
 'grave difficulty,' the appeal on a poiat of construction 
 was dismissed without costs, though there had been two 
 previous decisions the same way*; Wlialleg v. Whalley, 3 
 Bl. 1, 18, where the appeal was dismissed without costs 
 on the not very iatelligible grounds that no costs were 
 given in the Court below ; Inglis v. Mansfield, 3 CI. ^ F. 
 362, 384, where the decree below was affirmed, except as 
 to costs, without costs on account of the hardship of the 
 case; and Attorney General v. Dean §• Canons of 
 Windsor, 8 Ho. Lds. Ca. 369, 384, where the appeal of 
 the Attorney General on an ex officio information, filed in 
 consequence of an address from the House of Commons, 
 was dismissed without costs ; but qu. the power of the 
 House to give costs in that case {ibid., p. 385). A slight A slight 
 variation in the details of a decree which is substantially ^^"^e'"" 
 affirmed will not save the appellant from costs ( Wallace v. decree will 
 Patten, 12 CI. §• F. 491 ; Savery v. King, ibid., 527); oostr"^' 
 
 » See Boys v. Brarlly, 10 Ha. 389, c.. i,. i De G. M. ^ G. 58. 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 Where 
 there is a 
 fund or an 
 estate ic 
 litigation, 
 and the 
 decree is 
 affirmed. 
 
 A success- 
 ful appel- 
 lant never 
 has costs 
 of the 
 appeal in 
 the House 
 of Lords : 
 
 but may 
 get his 
 costs in the 
 Court 
 below. 
 
 especially if the error might have been set right by an 
 application to the Court below (^Savery v. King, he. cit) 
 
 Where there is a fund or an estate in litigation, the 
 costs of an unsuccessful appellant may be allowed out of 
 such fund or estate {Prendergast v. Prendergast, 3 Ho, 
 Lds. Ca. 195, 225 ; Thellusson v. Rendlesham, 7 Ho. Lds. 
 Ca. 429 ; Earl of Bective v. Hodgson, 3 N. R. 654) ; but 
 not where, on an appeal upon the construction of a will, it 
 turns out that the question admitted of no reasonable doubt 
 ( Townsend v. Early, 3 Be G. F. 8f J.l, 10). In Fisher v. 
 Brierley, 10 Ho. Lds. Ca. 159, the costs of an appeal by 
 some of the residuary legatees were given out of their 
 shares only of the estate; i. e. the appeal was in effect 
 dismissed with costs. In Sayer v. Bradly, he. cit., the 
 respondent's costs only were given out of the fund. 
 
 In the House of Lords it is an inflexible rule that a 
 successful appellant can, under no circumstances, have 
 his costs of appeal from the respondents who support the 
 decree of the Court below (^Morgan v. Evans, 8 Bl. n. s. 
 377, s.e. 3 CI. Sf F. 159; Mackersy r. Ramsays, 9 CI. 
 ^ F. 818, 851 ; Honsehill Coal ^ Iron Company Y.Neilsvn, 
 ibid. 817; Attorney General y. Cox, Z Ho. Lds. Ca. 240, 
 277) ; and see Hamilton v. Littlejohn, 4 CI. §• F. 20, a 
 case which illustrates the rule in the strongest manner. 
 And where the decree appealed from is reversed, the 
 House pronounces the decree which the Court below 
 ought to have pronounced, and the effect of such judg- 
 ment is to give the appellant the costs of the suit below, 
 which he would have had if the proper judgment had 
 been pronounced, but not the costs of appeal {Mackersy 
 V. Ramsays, he. eit. ; Attorney General v. Cox, he. eit. ; 
 Holroyd v. Marshall, 10 Ho. Lds. Ca. 191, 228). And 
 where the House of Lords reversed the decree below with 
 costs, and remitted the cause to the Court below, it was 
 held to include costs up to the drawing up of the decree 
 of the Court below only ( Small v. Attwood, 3 Vo. §• Col. 
 501). If an order of the Lord Chancellor, or the Lords 
 
COSTS OF EEHEARINGS AND APPEALS. 101^ 
 
 Justices reversing a decree of a Vice-Chancellor is itself 
 reversed, the course is to dismiss the petition of appeal to the 
 Lord Chancellor with costs {Holroyd v. Marshall,loc. cit). 
 
 The Lords Justices, on the other hand, have adopted in the 
 the practice in several cases of giving successful appellants Ap™al in 
 all their costs, including their costs of appeal {Davies v. Chancery a 
 Griffiths, 1 TV. iJ. 499; ffalKs v. Bastard, 17 Jui-. 1107; appellant 
 Collins V. Burton, -i De G. Sf Jo. 618). In the case last m^^yliave 
 cited, their lordships said that the present practice of the appeal. 
 Pri\'y Council was in favour of giving such costs. And 
 see Longford v. May, 1 W. R. 484 ; Marriage v. Skiggs, 
 4 De G. §• Jo. 4 ; Balli v. Universal, 8fc. Insurance Com- 
 pany, 2 J. §■ H. 176, 10 W. R. 278 ; Poicell v. Lovegrove, 
 2 Jur. n. s. 791, in all of which cases the costs of appeal 
 were given. But the practice is not universally fol- 
 lowed ; see ex. gr. Hughes v. Chester 8f Holyhead Railway 
 Company, 10 ?F. R. 219, where the Court of Appeal 
 reversed the order of V. C. Kindersley, assisted by two 
 Common Law Judges, one of whom dissented from the 
 order, and gave no costs of the suit or of the appeal ; and 
 Smith V. I^eveaux, 3 N. R. 18, where, reversing the de- 
 cree of V. C. Wood, the Lords Justices dismissed the bill 
 with costs, but gave no costs of the appeal. In Lillie v. Relief 
 Legh, Z De G. ^ J. 204, the Lords Justices so far re- f ''^g"™ 
 versed the decree below, dismissing the bill, as to grant hut appel- 
 the appellant liberty to bring an action, but made him costs. "^''^ 
 pay aU the costs, including the costs of the appeal, on 
 account of his harsh and vexatious conduct. The Lords 
 Justices occasionally, on reversing the decision of the 
 Court below, name a fixed sum for costs {Langford v. 
 May, he. cit.; Adams v. Sworder, 3 N. R. 273; Re 
 Catholic Publishing, §-c. Company, ibid. 655) ; or merely 
 order the return of the deposit, which is a disposal of the 
 costs of the appeal [Agabeg v. Hartwell, 5 Beav. 271). 
 
 A successful appellant in the House of Lords may, But a 
 however, have his costs out of the fund or estate, if there ^wj^nt' 
 is one in litigation {Stokes v. Heron, 12 CI. Sf F. 203}. mayevea 
 
102 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 in the But semhle not when the miscarriage of the Court below 
 
 LordThave ^^^ ^^ ^ point which might have required to be tried as 
 
 his costs a matter of fact {Piers v. Piers, 2 Ho. Lds. Ca. 331). In 
 
 fund or Eyre v. M'Dowell, 9 Ho. Lds. Ca. 619, a successful 
 
 estate. appellant was allowed to add the costs of the appeal to 
 
 his mortgage security. 
 
 Where the Where the decree appealed from is partly reversed and 
 
 parUyre- P^^'tly affirmed, the practice is to give no costs of the 
 
 Tersedand appeal (Torre V. Browne, 5 Ho. Lds. Ca. 555); but if the 
 
 afibmed decree is substantially affirmed and varied only in its 
 
 no costs details, the appeal will be dismissed with costs ( Wallace 
 
 given. _ ^^ 
 
 V. Patten, 12 CI. §• F. 491 ; Savery v. King, 5 Ho. Lds. 
 
 Ca. 527 ; and see Lillie v. Legh, 3 De G. Sf J. 204). 
 
 Where If the House of Lords, reversing the decree of the 
 
 sm?OTe*^* Court below, dismisses the bill as at the hearing with 
 
 given on costs, such costs are costs up to the hearing only, and will 
 
 erats^of ^ '^ot include the costs of the prosecution of enquiries, or 
 
 proceed- issues directed by the decree appealed from {Siree v. 
 
 sequent to Kirtuan, 9 CI. Sf F. 716, 746 ; Shaw v. Lawless, 5 CI. 8f 
 
 nrt'ir'"^ ^- 129 ; Mayor, 8fc. of South Molton v. Attorney General, 
 
 eluded. 5 Ho. Lds. Ca. 1 ; M'Mahon v. Burchell, 2 Ph. 139).' 
 
 Where ap- In Godson V. Hale, 7 CI. §• F. 549, the appeal having 
 
 respondent ^^^^ unexpectedly called on, the appellant's counsel were 
 
 makes not present, but he appeared in person, and the House 
 
 theTear^ allowed the appeal to stand over on payment of the costs 
 
 ing of an of the day by the appellant. In Fraser v. Gordon, 3 CI. 
 
 6c F. 719, the respondent, on the non-appearance of the 
 
 appellant, opened so much of his case as showed a prima 
 
 facie case, and the appeal was then dismissed with costs. 
 
 But in Richetts v. Lewis, 2 CI. 8f F. 100, and Murphy v. 
 
 Conway, 9 CI. 8f F. 73, the appeal was at once dismissed 
 
 with costs without hearing the respondents. Where the 
 
 respondents did not appear to support the decree of the 
 
 Court below, and had not even answered the petition of 
 
 appeal, the House reversed the decree, but without costs, 
 
 although there had been a previous decision on the same 
 
 point {Hamilton v. Littlejohn, 4 CI. §• F. 20). And lastly. 
 
COSTS OF EEHEARINGS AND APPEALS. 103 
 
 where neither party appeared, the appeal was dismissed 
 without costs {Sherburn v. Middleton, 9 CI. §• F. 72). 
 Costs cannot be given to a respondent who has omitted 
 to answer the appeal {Clyne v. Clyne, Rob. 115.) As to 
 the costs of an appeal motion to the Lords Justices, 
 where the moYiag party does not appear when it is 
 called on, see Turner v. Txirner, 15 Jur. 1165. 
 
 If a respondent has an objection to the competency of Wiere 
 an appeal to the House of Lords, he should bring it, by has an 
 preliminary petition, before the Appeal Committee ; for if objection 
 it is not raised tUl the hearing, and it proves fatal, the petency of 
 appeal will be dismissed without costs {Roclifort v. * * "^^P^" " 
 Battersby, 2 Ho. Lds. Ca. 388). If the petition against 
 the competency of the appeal is dismissed, the practice is 
 to reserve the costs of it till the hearing of the appeal 
 {Geils T. Geils, 3 Ho. Lds. Ca. 280; M'Mahon v. 
 Leonard, 5 Ho. Lds. Ca. 931); and if the appeal is after- 
 wards dismissed with costs on the merits, the costs of the 
 preliminary discussion will not be included, unless the 
 consideration of them was reserved ( Campbell v. Campbell, 
 
 7 CI. Sf F. 166). In Gray v. Forbes, 5 CI. §• F. 356, 
 the costs of the respondent unsuccessfully disputing the 
 competency of the appeal (which Jiad been reserved, ibid. 
 379) were included in the costs of the appeal on its dis- 
 missal with costs. But in Lambert v. Peyton, 8 Ho. Lds. 
 Ca. 1, the costs of the preliminary petition dismissed were 
 deducted from the costs of the appeal, dismissed on the 
 merits. 
 
 If there are cross appeals, one may be dismissed with. Where 
 and one without costs, according to circumstances ( Court ^^^l^ ^^^ 
 V. Robarts, 6 CI §• F. 65). And in Morgan v. Evans, appeals. 
 
 8 Bl. n. s. Ill, 3 CI ^ F. 159, the appellant in the 
 original appeal ^as, held entitled to a decree with costs in 
 the Court below, and received his costs of the cross 
 appeal, which was dismissed, by way of indemnity, as he 
 could not have the costs of his own appeal. 
 
 In Scholejield v. Lockwood, 3 iV. J?, 177, the costs of a The costs 
 
104 
 
 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 of parties 
 unneces- 
 sarily 
 served 
 with a 
 petition of 
 appeal 
 
 Where 
 fresh 
 
 evidence is 
 used on 
 appeal. 
 
 An appeal 
 motion on 
 new facts 
 and 
 evidence. 
 
 Costs of 
 
 not in- 
 cluded in 
 costs of 
 suit as 
 between 
 solicitor 
 and client. 
 
 party unnecessarily served with the petition of appeal and 
 appearing thereon were ordered to be paid by the appel- 
 lant; but see Crawshay v. Thornton, 2 My. §■ C. 24, 
 where a defendant who had not demurred was served with 
 the order for setting down an appeal against the aUowance 
 of a demurrer by another defendant, and appearing was 
 not allowed his costs. And, of course, a party not served, 
 and unnecessarily appearing, is not allowed costs (Tie 
 The Great Ship Company, limited, 3 iV[ i?. 181). In 
 Prendergast v. Prendergast, 3 Ho. Lds. Ca. 195, 225, a 
 trustee was held to be entitled to appear by counsel on the 
 appeal, but not to print a case or appendix, and was dis- 
 allowed the costs of so doing. 
 
 Where evidence is used on a rehearing before the Court 
 of Appeal,* which was not used at the original hearing, 
 that circumstance is taken into consideration in disposing 
 of the costs of the appeal ( Williams v. Goodchild, 2 Russ. 
 91). The costs of the viva voce examination in the 
 Appeal Court of witnesses who were not examined in the 
 Court below, may be disposed of irrespective of the costs 
 of the appeal {Martin v. Pycroft, 2 De G. M. §• G. 785) ; 
 such examination being in effect an issue to be tried 
 (ibid.) : and see Langford v. May, 1 W. R. 484, 22 L. J. 
 ch. 978. If a motion, which has been refused with costs 
 in the Court below, is renewed upon new facts and evidence 
 in the Court of Appeal, it is regarded as substantially an 
 original motion, and may lb e granted with costs {Re Joseph 
 §■ Webster, I R. 8f M. 496). 
 
 The costs of rehearings by the Lord Chancellor are not 
 included in 'costs of the suit as between solicitor and 
 client ' (Agabeg v. Hartwell, 5 Beav. 271), but require to 
 be specially mentioned {ibid.). 
 
 * It wiU he remembered that new evidence cannot be used in the House 
 of Lords (Macqueen's Jurisdiction of the House of Lords, 171). As to the 
 admission of fresh evidence on rehearing before the Lord Chancellor or 
 Lords Justices, see Glover v. Dauhney, 1 i?. E. 186. 
 
APPEALS FOK COSTS. 105 
 
 Section XI. — Appeals for Costs. 
 
 The disposal of the costs of a suit being in general in No appeal 
 the discretion of the Judge, there cannot, as a general ^onT*^^ 
 rule, be an appeal or rehearing on the question of costs 
 alone. But the rule 'has not been greatly approved' 
 (3Ienzies v. Connor, 3 3Iac. §• G. 648), and is subject to 
 large exceptions. 
 
 AVhere the costs are laid upon an estate, or ordered to Excep- 
 be paid out of a fund, the Court will hear an appeal, i.'°where 
 though for costs alone {Chappell v. Purday, 2 Ph. 227), costs are 
 ' The Court having given costs, has applied the fund of out of an 
 the party to a payment to which it ought not to be or'fund 
 applied ' (per Lord Eldon in Taylor v. Popham, 15 Ves. 
 72, 78); and see per Wigram arguendo in Taylor v. 
 Southgate, 4 My. §• C. 203, 208. And see further, as to 
 this exception to the general rule, Cowper v. Scott, 1 
 Eden, 17, s. c. 1 Bro. C. C. 144, n. ; Angel v. Davies, 4 
 My. §• Cr. 360 ; Eyre v. Marsden, ibid. 231 ; and Jenour 
 V. Jenour, 10 Ves. 562. Conversely it is said that parties 
 ordered to pay costs personally may appeal on the grounds 
 that they ought to have been ordered out of the fund 
 {Bagot V. Bagot, cited in Dan. Ch. Pr. 1114, n.); and 
 see Horn v. Coleman, 5 W. R. 409. 
 
 Again, where the question involves a principle or a rule "■ "Where 
 of practice to be laid down, then an exception is made of prin- 
 (^Chappell V. Purday, lac. cit.). An appeal for costs alone "P^® OJ^ . 
 was allowed against a decree dismissing a bill by a plain- involved, 
 tiff, who failed to establish his legal title, without costs 
 ( Chappell V. Purday, loc. cit. ; Corporation of Rochester 
 V. Lee, 2 De G. M. §• G. 427) ; and where a mortgagee 
 was refused his costs of a redemption suit {Owen v. 
 Griffiths, 1 Ves. 250 ; Norton v. Cooper, 5 De G. M. 8f G. 
 728) ; and against a judgment awarding costs against an 
 officer of the Crown suing on its behalf {Lord Advocate 
 V. Lord Dunglas, 9 CI. §• F. 173); and where the 
 
106 COSTS OF A SUIT GENERALLY. 
 
 question was as to the mode of providing for the costs of 
 administration suits (Menzies v. Connor, 3 Mac. §• G. 648 ; 
 Tai/lor V. Southgate, 4 My. §• C. 203 ; Eyre v. Marsden, 
 or costs ibid. 231). So an appeal will lie, when the Court is 
 aceSng* directed by Act of Parliament to give costs, and they are 
 to an Act not given according to the Act ( Tod v. Tod, 1 Bl. n. s. 
 ment. 639 ; Ex parte Bishop of London, 2 De G. F. 8f J. 14 ; 
 
 Be Merton College, 1 De G. J. §• S. 361). 
 Ko excep- The mere circumstance of costs being specifically 
 ea^e costs prayed will not enable the parties to appeal for costs 
 are speeifi- alone {Lancashire v. Lancashire, 2 Ph. 657, 662), though 
 prayed. that circumstance seems to have been rehed on in Angel 
 V. Davies, 4 My. 8f C. 360 ; and see Owen v. Griffiths, 1 
 Ves. 250 ; Jenour v. Jenour, 10 Ves. 562. 
 Decree Where an appeal embraces other matters, the Court 
 
 wied^as "^^1 Vary the decree or order as to costs, though it affirms 
 to costs, it otherwise {Burkitt v. Spray, 1 J?. §• ilf. 113 ; Attorney 
 affirmed as General V. Butcher, 4 Russ. 180 ; Lewis v. Smith, 1 Mac. 
 
 matterT- ^ ^- ^^^ ' ^^'^^^^ ^- ^PI'V^' 1 ^^ ^- ^-^ G. 660 ; 
 
 ' Inglis V. Mansfield, 3 C/. §• F. 384 ; M'Aulay v. ^^fam, 
 
 zS/i?. 385); but see contra, Williams v. Beynon, Beames, 
 
 app. 10. But there should be 'judicial dissent strong, 
 
 clear, and undoubting ' {Reynell v. Sprye, loc. cit. ; and 
 
 see Collard v. Roe, 4 Z>e G. §• Jl 525) ; and semble such 
 
 unless the variation will not protect the appellant from costs {Lewis 
 
 grounds of ^- Smith, loc. cit.). The other grounds of appeal must 
 
 appeal Ije Substantial, and not merely colourable {Attorney 
 
 colourable. General v. Butcher, loc. cit. ; M'Aulay v. Adam, loc. 
 
 cit.). And where the other matters were disposed of 
 
 before the hearing of the appeal, and nothing but the 
 
 question of costs was left, the Lord Chancellor refused to 
 
 hear the appeal {Berks v. Wycombe Railway Company, 1 
 
 N. R. 1.) 
 
107 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 COSTS IN PAKTICTJLAR SUITS. 
 
 Section I. — Suits for an Account. 
 
 ' It is generally true, that if a suit is instituted for an Where the 
 account between two persons, one alleging that nothing is o^g^of"" '^ 
 due from him, and a balance is found to be due from him, amount. 
 that person will have to pay the costs of the suit and of 
 the account. But the case would be wholly varied if the 
 case were that one party admitted a given sum to be due 
 from him, and the other had claimed a much larger sum, 
 and the suit proceeded only for the purpose of ascertain- 
 ing whether such contested balance were reaUy due or 
 not. In this case the costs would depend upon the sub- 
 stantial result, that is, if the balance claimed, or a sub- 
 stantial part of it, were shown to be due, the claimant 
 would obtain the costs of the suit ; if no part of it were 
 due, he would have to pay them ; and if only a small 
 portion of it were due, the Court would probably give no 
 costs on either side. But in aU these cases the Court 
 endeavours to see what were the substantial questions 
 and causes of litigation between the parties ' (per Sir J. 
 Komilly, M. E., May v. Biggenden, 24 Beav. 207, 214). 
 In that case, the defendant, who claimed a large balance 
 to be due to him from the plaintiff, and failed on every 
 item which the plaintiff disputed, had to pay the costs of 
 the suit, though a large sum was still due to him after all 
 deductions. 
 
 An accounting party who refuses to render his accounts Where the 
 before bill filed, or disputes his liability to account, will party°*'°^ 
 have to pay the costs up to and including the hearing refuses to 
 
108 
 
 COSTS IN PAETICULAE SUITS. 
 
 render 
 accounts. 
 
 An execu- 
 tor's mere 
 neglect to 
 furnish 
 accounts 
 not suffi- 
 cient to 
 charge 
 liim -with 
 costs. 
 
 (Anon. 4 Mad. 273 ; Attorney General v. Gibbs, 1 De G. 
 §• S. 156 ; s. c. on appeal, 2 Ph. 327 ; Boynton v. 
 Richardson, 31 Beav. 340; Sellar y. Griffin, 11 W, R. 
 583, 9 Jur. n. *. 612 ; ^emp v. Burn, 1 iV. i?. 257), even 
 though it should turn out that nothing is due to the plain- 
 tiff (^Attorney General v. Gills, loc. cit), or the plaintiff 
 waives the account at the hearing ( Colburn v. Simms, 2 
 Ha. 543), or the defendant offers a gross sum which it 
 turns out would have covered what was due from him 
 ( Colly er v. Durley, T. §• R. 421). But on duly account- 
 ing, the defendant will get his costs subsequently to the 
 hearing out of the balance (if any) found due from him 
 {Boynton v. Richardson, loc. cit.) ; and if the plaiatiff 
 perseveres ia having the accounts taken after the de- 
 fendant has rendered his accounts by answer, which turn 
 out to be substantially correct, and there is no balance, 
 the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs subsequent to 
 the hearing {Anon. 4 Mad. 273 ; Attorney General v. 
 Gibbs, loc. cit.; Thompson v. Clive, 11 Beav. 475). But 
 in Collyer v. Durley, loc. cit, the defendant paid the whole 
 costs of the suit. In Springett v. Dashwood, 2 Giff. 521, 
 where the amended bill contained charges of wilful neg- 
 lect and default, which were disproved, and the accounts 
 in the answer were substantially correct^ the Court gave 
 a trustee, who had refused to account, his costs from the 
 filing of the amended biU, and made him pay the costs up 
 to that time. In the same case a trustee who had not 
 acted had no costs down to the fihng of the amended bill. 
 If the defendants have occasioned the suit by not keeping 
 accounts, they must pay the whole costs of it {Pearse v. 
 Green, \ J. ^ W. 135). However, in White v. Jackson, 
 15 Beav. 191, it was said by Sir J. Eomilly, M. E., 
 that an executor had a right to have his accounts taken 
 in this Court, and the mere neglect, as distinguished from 
 pertinacious refusal, to render his accounts, was not 
 sufficient to deprive him of his costs. An executor or 
 trustee is not justified in refusing accounts to the solicitor. 
 
SUITS FOR ADMINISTKATION OF ASSETS. 109 
 
 of the parties, though he may suspect that the solicitor He is not 
 
 requires them for his own purposes {Kemp v. Burn, loc. refusing 
 
 cit.\ accounts to 
 
 ' . the solici- 
 
 A soucitor and agent may be charged as an accounting tor of the 
 party, although he is a mortgagee for the sums due to ^^ '^^' 
 
 A_ inorfc- 
 
 him, and the bill prays redemption {Detilin v. Gale, 7 Ves. gagee, 
 586) ; and in that case Lord Eldon gave the defendant ^^"g ^^1° 
 
 ^ ° _ an agent, 
 
 the costs down to the answer as mortgagee, but made him may be 
 pay the costs of the subsequent enquiries. But see ^ycogtg 
 Norton v. Cooper, 5 De G. M. §• G. 728. as an 
 
 In Jellicoe v. Price, 1 Y. §- C. C. C. 74, the Court party"*™^ 
 declined, in a suit for an account, to give the costs down Order for 
 to the hearing to the plaintiff at the heariag, but reserved of ^^ts 
 the question of costs until further directions. This seems ™ay be 
 
 17 1-1 Ti made at 
 
 to be the more usual practice ; but see Boynton v. the hear- 
 Richardson, loc. cit. ; Kemp v. Burn, loc. cit. ; Sellar v. ^°S- 
 Griffin, loc. cit. ; where the Court made an order at the 
 hearing for the payment of the costs down to that time. 
 
 Section II. — Suits for Administration of Assets. 
 It is a general rule, that wherever a suit for the ad- Wherever 
 
 ■ • ■ n 1 n -I 1 • 11 ^^ testa- 
 
 mmistration oi the assets oi a deceased person is rendered tor or 
 necessary by the nature of his will, or the circumstances J"''^^*''''' 
 of his property, or by his dying intestate, his general sioned the 
 personal estate must bear the costs of it {Jolliffe v. East, j^-g l^^.^^^ 
 3 Bro. C. C. 27; Studholme y. Hodgson, 3 P. W. 300; bears the 
 Pearson v. Pearson, 1 Sch. ^ L. 12 ; Wilson v. Brown- 
 smith, 9 Ves. 180; Gwyther Y.Allen, 1 Ha. 505; Philpott 
 V. St. George's Hospital, 6 Ho. Lds. Ca. 338 ; Shuttle- 
 worth V. Howarih, Cr. §• Ph. 228). The rule equally 
 applies, though the doubt on the construction of the will 
 was introduced by parol evidence for the defendant 
 (Nourse v. Finch, 1 Ves. Junr. 362). Nor wall it make 
 any difference that a declaration of the rights of the 
 
110 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 parties (which the Court can now make without giving 
 
 relief, under Stat. 15 & 16 Vic. c. 86, s. 50) is all that is 
 
 required to enable the executors or trustees to administer 
 
 the estate or execute the trusts of the will. The costs of 
 
 a special case on the construction of a will follow the 
 
 same rules as those of an administration suit (^Coohson v. 
 
 Bingham, 17 Beav. 266). 
 
 Costs of a In a suit for the general administration of assets, 
 
 general the costs of all proper and necessary parties are paid 
 
 admmis- j^ ^q gj.gt instance out of the assets before they are 
 
 tration, , , , , , . 
 
 where the distributed ; that is, in eifect, where the estate is sufficient 
 sufficient ^°^ ^ purposes, out of the residue. The * residue,' how- 
 .™^ . ever, is strictly only what remains after all the expenses 
 residue. of administering the estate have been paid {Eyre v. 
 Marsden, 4 My. §• Cr. 231 ; Shuttleworth v. Howarth, Cr. 
 Costs §• Ph. 228 ; Elborne v. Goode, 14 Sim. 165). And,there- 
 
 ed between ^^^^} where there is a residuary gift, but a portion of the 
 different residue is undisposed of, either through the happening of 
 of the some event, or by operation of law, the Court will not 
 
 residue. throw the costs exclusively on the part undisposed of, but 
 will apportion them between such part and the part which 
 is well given {Eyre v. Marsden, loc. cit). The rule 
 applies equally whether the partial intestacy arises from 
 lapse (as in Achroyd v. Smithson, 1 Bro. C. C. 503, 4 My. 
 8f Cr. 245 ; Roberts v. Walker, 1 R. ^ M. 752), or from 
 revocation of the bequest by the testator himself (as in 
 Creswell v. Cheslyn, 2 Ed. 123, 1 Swans. 571, n.); but 
 see contra, Chatteris v. Young, Beames, app. 27, and 
 Skrymshire v. Northcote, 1 Swans. 566, the effect of which 
 latter case seems to be misstated in Lord Cottenham's 
 judgment in Eyre v. Marsden, 4 My. §• C. 245. Instances 
 of the costs beiQg apportioned where the partial intestacy 
 arises from operation of law are Eyre v. Marsden, loc. cit. ; 
 and Elborne v. Goode, loc. cit., where accumulations be- 
 yond the limit of the Thellusson Act were held to be un- 
 disposed of ; and Attorney General y. Lord Winchelsea, 3 
 Bro. C. C. 273, s. c. sub nom. Attorney General v. 
 
SUITS FOE ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS. Ill 
 
 Htirst, 2 Cox, 364 ; Paice v. Archhislio-p of Canterbury 
 14 Ves. 364 ; Jones v. Mitchell, \ 8. &s S. 290 ; Crosbie v. 
 Mayor, §-c., of Liverpool, 1 R. ^- M. 761, n. ; Johnson v. 
 Woods, 2 Beav. 409 ; Hopkinson v. JE'Z/w, 10 Beav. 169 ; 
 JFare V. Cumberlege, 20 Beav. 503, 509, where gifts of 
 residue to charity failed as to the realty, or personalty 
 savouring of realty under the JNIortmain Act : and see as to 
 the form of the order in such case, Set. 333 ; Williams v. 
 Kershaio, 1 K. 274, n. So where a testator gave charitable 
 legacies to be paid out of his pure personalty, it was held 
 that the costs of suit were payable out of the two kinds 
 of personalty rateably ( Tempest v. Tempest, 7 De G. M. 
 .y G. 470 ; reversing s. c. 2 K. 8f J. 635). In Taylor v. 
 Mogg, 27 L. J. oh. 816, 5 Jur. n. s. 137, a testatrix 
 bequeathed to charity so much of her residue ' as she 
 could lawfully give to charitable uses,' and made no dis- 
 position of the remainder, and it was held that the costs 
 of the suit ought to be paid wholly out of the impure 
 personalty. But in Taylor v. Linley, 5 Jur. n. s. 701, 
 where the impure personalty was disposed of, the costs 
 were apportioned. But qu. whether the gifts to charity 
 in the cases last cited were not specific ? 
 
 A legatee is now considered as filing his bill on behalf Costs of a 
 
 Is^'iitsp's 
 
 of himself, and all other the legatees of the testator s^it, 
 {Thomas v. Jones, 1 Dr. §• S. 134). The costs of a suit 
 to establish a title to a legacy, whether pecuniary or 
 specific {Bagshawe v. Newton, Beames, 17 ; Barton v. 
 Cooke, 5 Ves. 464: ; Lonsdale v. Berchtold, 3 Jur. n. s. 
 329), axe prima facie, and always if there is a difficulty of 
 construction, or general administration is necessary, pay- 
 able out of the general assets. So the general estate, 
 and not the particular fund, must bear the costs of a suit 
 to establish a donatio mortis causa {Gardner v. Parker, 3 
 Mad. 184); or to declare the rights of parties to a legacy 
 charged on real estate {Dugdale v. Dug dale, 12 Beav. 
 247) ; or to have a legacy in which the plaintiff" has a re- 
 versionary interest, whether vested or contingent, set 
 
112 COSTS IN PARTICULAE SUITS. 
 
 apart and secured ( Studholme v. Hodgson, loc. cit. ; Handley 
 
 V. Davies, 5 Jur. n. s. 90) ; and semble, including the costs 
 
 of investment {Handley v. Davies, loc. cit.) ; but see 
 
 contra, Gwyther v. Allen, 1 Ha. 505, where it was held, 
 
 that if a fixed sum is to be laid out ia land the costs of 
 
 investment come out of the fund, but if lands of a certain 
 
 value are to be bought, such costs come out of the 
 
 general personal estate. But if the plaintiff's interest is 
 
 contingent, and fails pending the suit, or even after 
 
 decree, he cannot have his costs {Hay v. JBowen, 5 Beav. 
 
 610). The costs, however, of encLuiries for the benefit of 
 
 the legatee, as to his maintenance, &c., will come out of 
 
 the legacy {Barton v. Coohe, loc. cit). And as to the costs 
 
 of members of a class entitled to a legacy, see post, p. 124. 
 
 Where the Admission of assets by an executor sufficient for pay- 
 
 fs^charged D^ent of a legacy is for all purposes of the suit, and ex- 
 
 on admis- tends to costs {Attorney General v. Lawes, 8 Ha. 32, 44 ; 
 
 assets, Philanthropic Society v. Hohson, 2 My. SfK. 357 ; Macarthy 
 
 decree for ^ Macarthy, 1 Moll. 186). And where a decree is made 
 
 payment •'' ' 
 
 of a legacy for payment of a legacy on admission of assets, it will in 
 
 rally^be^' general be with costs, either out of the estate or by the 
 
 with costs, executor personally, as to which see post, pp. 120, seq. 
 
 But it seems that the plaintiff in such a case should exhaust 
 
 every means of obtaining payment of his legacy without 
 
 suit ; see Aylmer v. Winterbotham, 4 Jur. n. s. 189, where 
 
 the plaintiff omitted to offer a power of attorney, and had 
 
 no costs of the suit. The plaintiff may also lose his costs 
 
 if he is guilty of laches in bringing forward his. claim 
 
 {Lord V. Lord, 3 Jur. n, s. 485), though the defendants 
 
 set up the Statute of Limitations and fail {ibid.). In 
 
 Davis V. Austen, 1 Ves. Junr. 247, a decree for payment 
 
 of a legacy was made without costs, on account of the 
 
 ungraciousness of the claim, the executors having spent 
 
 more than the amount of the legacy on the legatee during 
 
 his infancy. 
 
 SecuB if Where, however, a legacy has been severed from the 
 
 the fund j^^jj^. ^f ^^ estate, and becomes the subject of litigation. 
 
bulk of 
 the estate. 
 
 SUITS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS. 113 
 
 the particular fund, and not the general estate, must bear has teen 
 the costs of a suit respecting it {Attorjwy General v. f^m tlie 
 Lawes, 8 Ha. 32 ; Martineau v. Rogers, 8 De G. M. 
 ^y G. 328); and see King v. Taylor, 5 Ves. 809 ;. Jenour 
 V. Jenour, 10 Fes. 562; /r//*OM v. Squire, 13 ^7?7^. 212 ; 
 Pennington v. Buckley, 6 ^a. 453. In the case last cited, 
 the question was between the residuary legatees and a 
 charity as to the title to a fund, which had been trans- 
 ferred into the names of trustees, after a life interest, and 
 the Court held that it went to the residuary legatees as 
 part of the general assets ; and, therefore, the costs came 
 out of it. Where the estate had been administered, and 
 a large fund set apart to answer certain legacies, the 
 costs of a suit for appropriating and securing one of those 
 legacies were held to be payable out of the corpus of the 
 legacy (^Governesses' Benevolent Institution v. Rusbridger, 
 18 Beav. 467), notwithstanding that the tenant for life of 
 the legacy was not a party to the suit {Richardson v. 
 Rusbridger, 20 Beav. 1 37). But the fund must be actually 
 severed from the estate when the bill is filed, and it makes 
 no difference that it was raised and set apart before the 
 persons entitled to it were actually ascertained {Dugdale 
 V. Dugdale, 12 Beav. 247). Nor will the admission of 
 assets in a legatee's suit alter the case, or the mere fact 
 that the particular amount has been paid into a bank or 
 placed in custody pending the decision. See Attorney 
 General v. Lawes, loc. cit., where the distinction between 
 the cases, where the fund is severed, and where it is not, 
 is thus pointed out by V. C. "Wigram : ' If the executors, 
 admitting the legacy to be payable, sever it from the 
 estate, and a dispute afterwards arises between the persons 
 to whom, or some of whom, the legacy belongs, and the 
 Court has to decide to whom it belongs, there the particular 
 fund bears the costs ; but if the dispute arises between 
 the persons claiming the legacy and those claiming the 
 estate in the residue, whether the legacy is payable or not, 
 that cannot be the case of a severance in the sense in 
 
 I 
 
114 
 
 COSTS IN PAETICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Exception 
 to the 
 general 
 rule in 
 adminis- 
 tration 
 suits, 
 when the 
 suit or 
 some pro- 
 ceeding in 
 it is not 
 for the 
 henefit of 
 the estate. 
 
 which the rule I have referred to applies, because then, 
 until the Court makes its decree that the legacy is payable, 
 the legacy is not severed from the estate : the executors 
 have kept it under their control for the purpose of having 
 the point decided' (p. 43). In Holgate v. Haworth, 
 17 Beav. 259, where the administrator settled with the 
 owners of three-fourths of the residue, and a bill was filed 
 by the owner of the other fourth for an account, it was 
 held that the plaintiff's share was liable to only one-fourth 
 part of the costs of the suit. 
 
 An exception to the general rule which gives the costs 
 of an administration suit out of the estate is made where 
 the suit is not for the benefit of the estate, or as to so 
 much of the costs as are occasioned by unfounded charges 
 or vexatious proceedings. ' No costs ought to be given 
 out of an estate except for those proceedings only which 
 are in their origin directed with some show of reason and 
 a proper foundation for the benefit of the estate, or which 
 have in their result conduced to that benefit ' (per Lord 
 Westbury, C, vnBartlett v. Wood, 9W.R.Sn); and in 
 that case the costs occasioned by charges of fraudulent 
 conduct made in an infant legatee's bill against the 
 executor and disproved were disallowed. So in Marshall 
 V. Bremner, 2 W. R. 320, the assignees in insolvency of 
 one entitled in remainder having filed an administration 
 claim seeking to have certain leaseholds converted, the 
 Court, being of opinion that the tenant for Hfe was 
 entitled to enjoy the leaseholds in specie, gave the plaintifi" 
 no costs. In Mackenzie v. Taylor, 7 Beav. 467, a bill for 
 general administration was filed on behalf of infants 
 entitled to one moiety of the residue, and the persons 
 entitled to the other moiety by answer, and at the hearing 
 objected to the suit as unnecessary, and the accounts 
 having proved to be substantially correct, the costs were 
 ordered to be paid out of the plaintiff's share alone. See 
 also Barber v. Barber, 3 My. §• Cr. 688, where the costs 
 
SUITS FOE ADMINISTRATION Or ASSETS. 115 
 
 ■were paid out of the two shares of residue which alone 
 were substantially affected by the suit. 
 
 But if the suit has enabled the Court to administer the But the 
 estate, the plaintiff, though he fails in his particular claim, may be 
 ^vill be allowed his costs; see Marshall v. Shepherd, 2 Cox, ^^°^^^ 
 161, where the plaintiff filed his bill on the footing of an though he 
 intestacy, and a will was afterwards established in the ^J^ ^ 
 Ecclesiastical Court ; and Taylor v. Haygarth, 8 Jur. 
 135, where the plaintiffs unsuccessfully claimed to be the 
 next of kin of an intestate, and the real next of kin were 
 ascertained by enquiries in the suit ; and see the cases on 
 this point collected, ante, pp. 66, seq. The Court also con- A suit for 
 !^iders that it is prima facie a benefit to an infant to be tration cf 
 made a ward of Court and have his property secured and an infant's 
 
 "DropBrty 
 
 duly administered (per L. J. Turner, Clayton v. Clarke, pHmafade 
 
 9Jr.B.7l8). a benefit 
 
 ^ _ to him. 
 
 ' Testamentary expenses ' do not include the costs of an wTiat 
 administration suit, and therefore a particular fund '^°E^^. ^ 
 
 ' -"^ _ sufficient 
 
 charged T\'ith the payment of such expenses will not have to throw- 
 to bear the costs of the suit in exoneration of the general ^^'^ 
 estate (^Brown v. Groombridge, 4 Mad. 495 ; Linley v. particular 
 Taylor, 1 Giff. 67 ; Stringer v. Harper, 26 Beav. 585 ; 
 Bipley v. Moysey, 1 K. 578); but see contra, 3Iorrell y. 
 Fisher, 4 De G. §' ^S". 422. But a provision for the pay- 
 ment of ' testamentary and other expenses ' will include 
 the costs of the suit ( Webb v. Z>e Beauvoisin, 1 N. R. 
 81) and 'the costs and charges of proving and attend- 
 ing the execution of this my will and the several trusts 
 therein contained,' wiU also include the costs of an ad- 
 ministration suit (Alsop V. Bell, 24 Beav. 451, 469); but 
 the charge of ' the costs of executing the trusts hereof,' 
 upon a fund to be set aside by the executors was held not 
 to extend to the costs of executing the trusts of the real 
 estates, being confined to costs of executors in that character 
 {Lord Brougham v. Lord W. Poulett, 19 Beav. 119). In a ^.edTtor's^ 
 creditor's suit the costs are payable out of the same funds suit out of 
 
 1 2 
 
116 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 tlie same 
 funds as 
 the debts. 
 
 Where an 
 admmis- 
 tratiou 
 suit is also 
 for other 
 purposes. 
 
 Where two 
 estates are 
 adminis- 
 tered in 
 the same 
 suit. 
 
 Where the 
 real and 
 personal 
 estates are 
 adminis- 
 tered in 
 the same 
 suit. 
 
 as the debts, and therefore, if a particular fund or estate 
 is charged with debts, the costs of a creditor's suit also will 
 be charged upon it ( Wilson v. Heaton, 1 1 Beav. 492 ; 
 and see Mutlow v. Mutlow, 4 De G. 8f J. 539). 
 
 If an administration suit is also for other purposes, or it 
 becomes necessary to administer or execute the trusts of 
 another estate or fund in it, the costs of the suit will be 
 divided; see Young v. Martin, I Y. 8f C. C. C. 582, where 
 the costs of a suit to administer the estate of a testatrix, 
 including a fund appointed by her will, were payable, so 
 far as related to the appointed fund, out of that fund, and 
 as to the remainder only, out of the general estate. In 
 Irby V. Irby, 24 Beav. 525, the costs of a suit to adminis- 
 ter the estate of the tenant for life of a settlement, to 
 whom the trust funds had been lent on mortgage, and to 
 reahze the mortgage and incidentally execute the trusts of 
 the settlement, were payable, so far as an administration 
 suit, out of assets, but so far as increased by its being a 
 suit to execute the trusts of the settlement, out of the 
 settlement funds. And in Dean v. Morris, 5 W. R., 345, 
 it was held that the costs of administering two estates 
 which had been dealt with as one fund should be paid out 
 of the estates equally, though they were unequal in 
 amount. Where a suit was instituted by the administrator 
 de bonis nan of a testator against the personal representa- 
 tive of a defaulting executor of the same testator to 
 recover the amount due from him, and also to administer 
 the estate of the original testator, it was held that the 
 executor's estate must bear the costs of it ( Hyatt v. Hyatt, 
 30 Beav. 630). 
 
 The decisions are not always consistent as to the mode 
 in which the costs of a suit to administer both real and 
 personal estate should be borne. It seems, however, that 
 where the testator has created a mixed residue of realty 
 and personalty, and the two are administered together as 
 a common fund, the costs of the suit are paid out of 
 both rateably, according to their respective values. But 
 
SUITS FOR ADMJNISTKATION OF ASSETS. 117 
 
 ■where the real and personal estate are given upon dif- 
 ferent trusts, and a suit is necessary to determine the 
 rights of parties, the general costs of the suit are payable 
 out of the general personal estate only, on the principle 
 stated ante, p. 108 ; and that will be so, although the 
 difficulty arises with respect to the real estate solely, if 
 there is a prayer in the biU for administration of the 
 personal estate also. See in illustration of the practice 
 as stated above, Cradock v. Owen, 2 Sm. §• G. 241 ; 
 Bunnett v. Foster, 7 Beav. 540 ; s. c. on appeal sub nom. 
 Christian v. Foster, 2 Ph. 161 ; Johnston v. Todd, 8 Beav. 
 489, where the costs were paid rateably : and Ripley v. 
 Moysey, 1 K. 578 ; Pickford v. Brown, 2 K. ^ J. 426 ; 
 Stringer v. Harper, 26 Beav. 585 ; Barnewell v. Ire- 
 monger, 1 Dr. §- S. 255 ; Maddison v. Chapman, 1 J. ^ 
 H. 470 ; Puxley v. Puxley, 1 N. R. 509 ; Randjield v. 
 Randfield, 2 N. R. 309, 11 W. R. 807, where the costs 
 were paid out of the personal estate only. In Sanders 
 V. Miller, 25 Beav. 154, the costs of the suit, so far as 
 it was for the administration of the real estate, were 
 ordered to be paid out of the undisposed-of realty, and so 
 far as for the administration of the personal estate out of 
 the undisposed-of personalty. But this decision is con- 
 trary to the current of authority and has not been followed ; 
 see the later cases cited above. The particular costs and 
 expenses, however, incurred after an order for sale of any 
 part of the real estates in effecting the sale, should, it 
 seems, be borne out of the proceeds of sale {Barnewell v. 
 Iremonger, he. cit.^. If the personal estate is exhausted 
 in payment of debts, the costs will come out of any estate 
 or fund charged with the payment of debts ( Wisden v. 
 Wisden, 5 Jur. n. s. 86 ; Puxley v. Puxley, loc. cit.\ In 
 an ordinary creditor's suit, the administration of the real 
 estate is not ordered unless the personal estate is in- 
 sufficient for the payment of debts (see the form of 
 decree, Seton, 231); and as in that case the costs are 
 payable out of the same funds as the debts ( Wilson v. 
 
118 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Apportion- 
 ment 
 between 
 legal and 
 equitable 
 assets. 
 
 Costs of a 
 suit to 
 execute 
 trusts of 
 real estate 
 only. 
 
 The Court 
 may sell 
 or mort- 
 gage an 
 infant's 
 sale for 
 payment 
 of costs. 
 
 But the 
 rule by 
 which 
 costs are 
 payable 
 out of 
 residue 
 does not 
 apply as 
 between 
 the 
 
 appointed 
 and im- 
 appointed 
 parts of a 
 fund. 
 
 Costs of a 
 plaintiff 
 
 Heaton, 11 Beav. 492), the question discussed above does 
 not often arise. But in 3Iutlow v. Mutlow, 4 De G. §• J. 
 539, where the real estate which was charged with debts, 
 and therefore equitable assets, had been administered 
 and the costs of the suit paid out of the proceeds, a 
 reversionary fund which was legal assets having fallen 
 into possession, the Court apportioned the costs between 
 the legal and equitable assets, so as not to disappoint the 
 simple contract creditors. 
 
 If the suit is for the administration or execution of the 
 trusts of the real estate alone, the costs will fall on the 
 residuary real estate (^Marshall v. Grime, 8 W. R. 385) ; 
 or if there is no such real estate, upon the estates 
 specifically devised (^Sanders v. Miller, 25 Beav. 154; 
 Barnewell v. Iremonger, 1 Dr. §• S. 255) ; and for the 
 purpose of apportionment the amount of the incumbrances 
 (if any) on each estate should be deducted from its gross 
 value (ibid.). And in a suit for executing the trusts of real 
 estate, which has been settled by will upon infants, the 
 Court has power, if necessary, to direct a sale or mortgage 
 of sufficient part of the property for payment of the costs 
 of the suit {^Mandeno v. Mandeno, Kay, app. ii. ; Adams 
 V. Adams, cited ibid. iii. ; Cannell v. Beeby, 1 Dick. 115, 
 Beames, app. 7). 
 
 But the rule which throws the costs of the suit on 
 the part of the estate which is not specifically disposed 
 of, does not apply as between the appointed and un- 
 appointed portions of a fund in course of administration 
 (TroUope v. Routledge, 1 Be G. 8f S. 662, 671 ; Warren 
 Y. Postlethwaite, 2 Col. 116); but the costs in that case 
 are payable out of the appointed and unappointed parts 
 rateably according to their respective values {ibid.) In 
 Warren v. Postlethwaite, loc. cit. the suit was to administer 
 the estate of a married woman who had made her will 
 under a power. 
 
 When several administration suits have been con- 
 soKdated and one decree made in all and the conduct of 
 
SUITS FOR ADMIX ISTKATION OF ASSKTS. 119 
 
 them giTen to the plaintifF in one of them, he Avill be *e 
 entitled to his further costs properly incurred in pro- several 
 secution of the decree, beyond his ordinary costs as plain- ^"j?? '=°"" 
 
 ._,.,. ..,.., ■' ^ solidated. 
 
 titt m his own suit, including his costs, charges, and ex- 
 penses incurred in the conduct of sales under the decree 
 (Lockhart v. Hardy, 10 Beav. 292). 
 
 The costs of an administration suit are payable in Costs of 
 priority to the costs of a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court prior'' 
 respectino- the will, and there ordered to be paid out of the charge to 
 
 / ir ,, N , costs of 
 
 estate {Major y. Major, 2 Drew. 281); but not to the litigntion 
 
 charges incurred by an officer of this Court, in reference g;'^^^^^!" 
 
 to the estate: see Morison v. Morison, 7 De G. M. Sf G. Court; 
 
 214, 224, where the estate comprised West India property, charges of 
 
 and the consignee appointed by the Court was allowed to an officer 
 
 retain advances made by him out of the estate in priority Court. 
 
 to the costs of the suit. An executor or administrator Eight of 
 
 has also a rig-ht to retain his own debt in priority to the J'^*''"^^'' 
 
 . , X ./ by execu- 
 
 costs of the suit ( Clissum v. Dewes, 5 Huss. 29 ; Tipping tor of his 
 V. Poicer, 1 Ha. 405; Home v. Shepherd, 26 L. J. 817, "^rio^ty 
 3 Jur. n. s. 806) ; notsvithstanding Loomes v. Stotherd, to the 
 \ S. ^ S. A5S, contra. And as to the priority of the costs tiig g^it. 
 of the suit over debts, see post. 
 
 Executors and administrators are, in the absence of Costs of 
 gross misconduct, entitled to their full costs of the suit as ^^^ 
 between solicitor and client out of the estate, together adminis- 
 
 . , , , 1 , . trators in 
 
 With any other costs, charges, and expenses properly m- adminis- 
 curred by them {ante, p. 2);* and in priority to all other Oration 
 parties, as to which see post. As executors can only 
 obtain complete exoneration by having their accounts 
 passed in this Court, the Court is anxious not to deter 
 them from so doing by refusing them costs {Low v. Carter, 
 1 Beav. 426 ; Hall v. Hallett, 1 Cox, 141 ; and see Curteis v. 
 Candler, 6 Mad. 123). And if an executor refuses to join 
 his co-executor as a plaintiff in a proper case, and is there- 
 
 * The costs, charges, and expenses of getting in a particular debt specifically 
 bequeathed are allowed to the executors out of the general estate and are 
 not charged on the particular fund {Perry v. Meddowcroft, i Beav. 204). 
 
 suits. 
 
120 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Mere 
 
 negligence 
 will not 
 deprive an 
 executor of 
 his costs. 
 Executor 
 retaining 
 balances 
 in his 
 hands and 
 charged 
 with 
 interest. 
 
 But if the 
 executors 
 are guilty 
 of gross 
 miscon- 
 duct, they 
 will be 
 Tisited 
 with costs. 
 
 Cases 
 where 
 executors 
 were 
 
 fore made a defendant, he will be refused 'his costs ( Collyer 
 V. Dudley, 2 L. J. ch. 15). The mere fact of executors 
 being charged with interest on balances in their hands, or 
 any mere negligence, are not sufficient grounds for visiting 
 them with the costs of the suit, or even refusing them 
 costs {Flanagan v. Nolan, 1 Moll. 84; Travers v. 
 Toicnsend, ibid. 496 ; Noble v. Mei/mott, 14 Beav. 471 ; 
 Bennett v. Atkins, \ Y. ^ C. 24.1 ; Woodhead v. Marriott, 
 C. P. C. 62 ; Eglin v. Saunderson, 3 Giff. 434) ; notwith- 
 standing Lord Loughborough's dictum in Seers v. Hind, 
 1 Ves. Junr. 294, which was disapproved of by Sir W. 
 Grant in Ashburnham v. Thompson, 13 Ves. 402, as too 
 broadly stated. ' I have often heard it laid down as a 
 principle by some of the greatest judges, that an executor, 
 though in the result made answerable for default by 
 reason of loss incurred through neglect, or chargeable 
 with interest for retaining money in his hands, yet if 
 there was nothing beyond such negligence or retention of 
 money against him, is entitled to the costs of the suit' 
 (per Sir A. Hart, L. C., in Travers v. Townsend, he. cit). 
 
 But if the executors' accounts are falsified, or they 
 have been guilty of gross or wilful negligence, or have 
 acted from fraudulent or interested motives, they will 
 have to pay the costs of the suit, or so much of it as has 
 been occasioned by their misconduct ; or, at least, will not 
 be allowed costs. The general principle is thus stated by 
 Sir T. Plumer : ' If a suit would have been proper, and 
 the executor a necessary party, though the executor had 
 not misconducted himself, he ought not to pay all the 
 costs of such suit, though in the course of the suit it 
 appears that he has misconducted himself; but if the 
 misconduct of the executor was the sole occasion of the 
 suit, he ought then to pay the costs ' ( Tebbs v. Carpenter, 
 1 Mad. 290. 
 
 In the following cases {Bailey v. Gould, 4 F. §• C. 221 ; 
 Bennett v. Atkins, loc. cit.-. Noble v. Meymott, loc. cit. ; 
 Flanagan v. Nolan, loc. cit. ; Travers v. Townsend, loc. 
 
SUITS FOK adjiixisti;ation of assets. 121 
 
 cit.; Royds v. Royds, 14 Beav. 54; Cotton v. Clarke, 16 billowed 
 t>eai\ lc54 ; Holgate v. Haioorth, 17 5ea?;. 2J9) executors costs. 
 retaining balances in their hands and charged with in- 
 terest thereon, -vvere nevertheless allowed their full costs ; 
 and in Taylor v. Tabrum, 6 Sim. 681, they were allowed 
 costs, though chai-ged mth a loss of £3,000. Again in 
 Bennet v. Going, 1 Moll. 529, an executor in whose 
 accounts £300 had been disallowed had his costs ; the 
 disallowance of a credit honestly claimed not being a 
 falsification of accounts. 
 
 In Raphael \. Boehm, 11 Ves. 92, 13 Ves. 590; Tehbs "Where 
 V. Carpenter, lac. cit. ; Pocock v. Redington, 5 Ves. 800 ; ^^g" °^ 
 Colyer v. Colyer, 11 TV. R. 79, 32 L. J. 101, executors, allowed 
 though charged with interest on balances in their hands, of the suit 
 were allowed the costs of the suit, except as to the f^'^'^P*?^ 
 
 ^ to special 
 
 enquiries thereby rendered necessary, of which they had inquiries 
 to pay the costs in Tebbs v. Carpenter, loc. cit. ; and of ^ ^^^^^ 
 which no costs were given in the other cases cited. And l^reach 
 in Heighington x. Grant, 1 Ph. 600, they were charged 
 with compound interest, and made to pay the costs of so 
 much of the suit as sought to chai-ge them with interest, 
 but received their fuU costs of the rest of the suit ; and 
 see Pride v. Fooks, 2 Beav. 430. 
 
 Lastly, in Seers v. Hind, loc. cit. ; Newton v. Bennet, Where the 
 
 Gxpcutors 
 
 1 Bra. C. C. 362 ; Rocke v. Hart, 11 Ves. 58, 62 ; Mosley ^ere 
 V. Ward, ibid., 581, 3 ; Ashburnham v. Thompson, loc. ''^^^^f^ 
 cit.; Crackelt v. Bethune, \ J. ^ W. 586 ; Ticknery. Smith, the costsi 
 3 Sm. §• G. 42 ; Eglin v. Saunderson, loc. cit. ; Walrond ° ^ ^^^ ' 
 V. IValrond, 29 Beav. 586, the executors had to pay all 
 the costs of the suit. But if, when ordered to pay the 
 costs at the hearing, they comply with the decree, they 
 may receive their subsequent costs {Hewett v. Foster, 7 
 Beav. 348). In Hide v. Hayivood, 2 Ath. 126, executors 
 guilty of fraud were charged .with costs, notwithstanding 
 a special direction in the will that they should have costs 
 out of the estate. But if the bill fails to establish the But 
 particular charges made, the executors, though they have entitled to 
 
122 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 costs of 
 
 disproving 
 
 particular 
 
 charges, 
 
 though 
 
 guilty of 
 
 negligence. 
 
 Executors 
 implicated 
 in breach 
 of trust 
 charged 
 jointly. 
 
 been guilty of negligence, will be entitled to their costs 
 of meeting those charges ; see Smith v. Chambers, 2 Ph. 
 221, where it was held that the costs incurred in in- 
 judiciously defending an action were not within ' wilful 
 neglect and default,' and therefore the executors were 
 allowed costs. And see further as to the costs of in- 
 judiciously defending an action, Noble v. Brett, 5 Jur. n. s. 
 4, 28 L. J. 322, where they were not allowed. Where 
 two or more defendants are implicated in a breach of trust, 
 the plaintiff is entitled to an order for payment of his 
 costs by all, and the Court will not distinguish between 
 the relative degrees of culpability {Lawrence v. Bowie, 2 
 Ph. 140). The circumstance that the estate proves in- 
 sufficient may be a reason for refusing the trustees all or 
 a part of their costs, if they have not strictly administered 
 their trust {Beer v. Tapp, 10 W. R. 277). But in 
 Haldenby v. Spofforth, 9 Beav. 195, the representatives 
 of a defaulting executor fairly accounting were held 
 entitled to retain their costs of the suit out of the assets, 
 though insufficient to repair the breach of trust. The 
 suit was, in fact, a mere creditor's suit. 
 
 Or again, if the executors, though not guilty of any 
 
 have acted breach of trust and without any fraudulent motives, have 
 
 or witr ^ acted p erverse ly or with unreasonable caution or suspicion, 
 
 unreason- they wili have to pay the costs of a suit occasioned by 
 
 caution : such conduct. An executor is ordinarily bound to render 
 
 the accounts of his testator's estate to the solicitor of the 
 
 refusing to residuary legatee, and if he refuses he will have to pay 
 
 personally the costs of the suit up to the hearing {Kemp 
 
 V. Burn, 1 N. R. 257, 11 W. R. 278, 9 Jur. n. s. 375); 
 
 but not the subsequent costs if he accounts fairly {ibid?) : 
 
 and see the cases collected ante, p. 107. So in a legatee's 
 
 suit, where the executor has returned evasive answers 
 
 to enquiries by the legatee {Grierson v. Astle, 3 L. T. 
 
 n. s. 288) ; or has been unreasonably cautious as to the 
 
 evidence of a matter of fact {Lyse v. Kingdon, 1 Coll. 
 
 184); or has annexed conditions to the payment of the 
 
 Where 
 executors 
 
 account, 
 
 or pay a 
 legacy. 
 
SUITS FOR ADMINISTRATION- OF ASSETS. 123 
 
 legacy which he has no right to impose ( fVibon v. Pateij, 
 
 1 Russ. 375). But it seems the legatee should exhaust 
 
 every means of obtaining payment of his legacy before 
 
 instituting a suit {Aylmer v. Winterbotham, 4 Jur. n. s. 
 
 19). Trustees ought not to refuse to pay a settled legacy p^ spoure 
 
 into Court under the Trustee Eelief Act, if so requested, settled"m 
 
 and having refused so to do, they were charged with the ^°"'^*- 
 
 costs of a suit to secure it {Handler/ v. Davies, 5 Jur. n. s. 
 
 90). And an executor or trustee is not justified in re- Executor 
 
 fusing to pay a legacy or distribute a fund without the having 
 
 direction of the Court, on the ground of legal doubts in ^fS'^} . 
 
 ° ° doubts in a 
 
 a clear case, bee Harvey v. Harvey, 3 Jur. 919 ; Burrows clear ease. 
 
 V. Greemoood, 4 F. §• C. 251 ; Firmin v. Pulham, 2De G.Sf 
 
 S. 99 ; Peirce v. Loaden, 21 Beav. 508, where the executor 
 
 or trustee had to pay costs ; and I-Cnight v. Martin, I B. Sf 
 
 M. 70, where he got no costs. But on the other hand, Opinion of 
 
 the opinion of counsel, however eminent, is no protection protection 
 
 to an executor against costs if he takes upon himself to act ^ execu- 
 
 1 • c 1 -11 • 1 1 ■ t°'' against 
 
 upon a particular construction ot the will without seeking costs. 
 the direction of the Court (Boulton v. Beard, 3 De G. M. 
 §• G. 608) ; and if he distributes the whole estate according 
 to a wrong construction, he will have to pay personally 
 the costs of a suit, in which the plaintiff successfully 
 establishes his title to a share {ihid^. The reason there 
 assigned for charging the executor personally with costs 
 was that by distributing the estate he had prevented the 
 plaintiff having his rights determined at the expense of 
 the estate ; and see Curtis v. Rohinson, 8 Beav. 242. 
 
 An administrator of a supposed intestate, acting bond Costs of 
 Jide, was held to be entitled to costs out of the estate, trator'**' 
 although a will was afterwards produced, the residuary where 
 legatee under which obtained revocation of the letters of ad- adminis- 
 ministration and probate of the will (Mirehouse v. Herbert, ti'^'i°° "^e 
 5 fV. B. 538) ; and see Taylor v. Haygartli, 8 Jur. 135. revoked. 
 
 A personal representative claiming part of the estate Personal 
 beneficially is in no better position in that respect than ^ativr"" 
 any other defendant, and will have to pay the costs of a claiming 
 
124 
 
 COSTS IN PAKTICULAK SUITS. 
 
 tene- 
 ficially. 
 
 AVIiere the 
 beneficiary 
 is not a 
 necessary 
 party. 
 
 Costs of 
 members 
 of a class 
 proving 
 tlieir title 
 to share 
 in a legacy, 
 come out 
 of the 
 fund, 
 
 But 
 costs of 
 residuary 
 legatees 
 and next 
 of kin, out 
 of the 
 estate 
 before 
 division. 
 
 suit in which that portion is successfully recovered froni 
 him {Bruin v. Knott, 12 Jur. 616). 
 
 Where there is a bequest to a trustee for payment of 
 debts and then in trust for one absolutely, the legatee is 
 not a necessary party to a creditor's suit, and will be dis- 
 missed with costs, to be paid by the plaintiff (Smith v. 
 Andrews, 4 W. R. 353) ; but semble, not if he does not 
 object by answer or at the hearing (Williams v. Williams, 
 1 W. R. 237, 17 Jur. 434). In that case he must bear 
 his own costs (ibid.). 
 
 It seems that where a pecuniary or specific legacy is 
 given to a class, the costs of raising the legacy only will 
 come out of the general estate, and the costs of ad- 
 ministering the fund, comprising the costs of each person 
 proving his title as a member of the class, will come out 
 of the fund itself (Boycott v. Newman, 4 W. R. 707, 2 
 Jur. n. s. 702 ; Wallis v. Witham, Beames, app. 1) ; but 
 see contra, Dugdale v. Dugdale, 12 Beav. 247. And, of 
 course, where a fund charged upon an estate by a previous 
 settlement has to be raised in an administration suit, the 
 costs of raising it only come out of the estate (Stewart v. 
 Marquis of Donegal, 2 Jo. §• Lat. 636). 
 
 But all the costs of ascertaining the members of a class 
 entitled to a residue, or the next of kin of an intestate, 
 are part of the general costs of the suit, and are payable 
 out of the general personal estate before division 
 (Shuttleworth v. Howartli, Cr. §• Ph. 228; Doody v. 
 Higgins, 9 Ha. app. xxxii.) ; and see further as to the costs 
 of next of kin proving their title in chambers, Bennett 
 V. Wood, 7 Sim. 522 ; Bakewell v. Tagart, 3 F. §• C. 173. 
 The rule applies although the testator has given his 
 residue in certain proportions amongst different classes ; 
 and all the costs of ascertaining the members of the several 
 classes in such case must be borne by the estate generally, 
 although some classes are more numerous than others, and 
 the expenses of ascertaining the members of them con- 
 sequently greater (Shuttleworth v. Howarth, loc. cit.) In 
 
SUITS FOR ADMIXISTEATIOX OF ASSETS. 125 
 
 Attorney General v. Haberdashers' Company, 4 Bro. C. C. 
 177, tivo unreported cases {TFhistlcr v. RaioUnson; Holden 
 T. Burnell) are cited in -which persons who came in under 
 the decree, and claimed to be next of kin or heirs at laiv, 
 and failed to prove their title, were nevertheless allowed 
 their costs. 
 
 But any extra costs which are occasioned by the con- But any 
 duct of a residuary legatee, or the party entitled to a dis- occasioned 
 tributive share, or are for his exclusive benefit, wAl come ^y '■^ P'*''ty 
 
 _p 1 • 1 rrM ' r~t • c-i t^ himself, or 
 
 out ot his own share, ihus in Basevi v. Serra, 14 T es. mcurred 
 313, the defendants being entitled to a residue in equal ^°^^fit^°^® 
 shares, and long enquiries having been rendered necessary come out of 
 by the bankruptcy of a person entitled to one share, the 
 costs were apportioned on the several shares. So where 
 pending the suit the plaintiff, residuary legatee, com- 
 pounded with his creditors and became insolvent, whereby 
 two supplemental bills were necessary, the costs of them 
 fell on the plaintiff {Brace v. Ormonde, 2 J. ^ W. 435). 
 The practice as to costs where any of the persons entitled Wlere any 
 have incumbered their shares is now settled by Greedy v. parties to 
 Lavender, 11 Beav. 417. The assignor and assignee are an ad- 
 
 , . ministra- 
 
 only entitled to one set of costs between them, viz., the tion suit 
 costs of the assignor, which are directed to be paid to the ^^^V^^g^ 
 assignee towards his costs (so far as the same may be re- their 
 quired) ; and the excess (if any) of the assignee's costs is 
 payable out of the particular share {ihid. p. 421): and 
 see Re Bright s Trusts, 3 W. R. 544 ; Remnant v. Hood, 
 27 Beav. 613 ; Ward v. Yates, 1 Dr. §• S. 80. Lord 
 Langdale, ]\1. R., added a direction to the order in Greedy 
 V. Lavender, to exclude from the assignor's costs 'any 
 additional costs incurred by reason of the said defen- 
 dants, or any of them, having assigned, mortgaged, or 
 incumbered their shares '(11 Beav. 421); but Sir J. 
 EomUly, IM. E.., disapproved of this direction as too 
 refined {Coates v. Coates, 3 N. R. 355). In Haywood 
 V. Grazebrook, 13 Jur. 619, where some of the parties 
 who had incumbered their shares had joined other de- 
 
126 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Costs of 
 assignees 
 in bank- 
 ruptcy of 
 executor. 
 
 Costs of 
 Attorney 
 General 
 claiming 
 the share 
 of a felon. 
 
 fendants in their defence, V. C. Knight Bruce held that 
 the estate should have the benefit of the assignor having 
 joined with the others, and the assignee must add his costs 
 to his incumbrance ; but in Greedy v. Lavender, loc. cit, 
 it was said that the costs under such circumstances must 
 be apportioned. In Bass' Trusts, 15 Jur. 241, Lord 
 Cranworth, V. C, gave the assignee of a life interest Ms 
 own costs, and no costs to the tenant for life; and in 
 Musson V. Hackett, 2 L. T. n. s. 592, the Court gave a 
 married woman, who had settled her interest, and her 
 children, and the trustees of her settlement, but one set of 
 costs, and left it to the taxing master to say to whom they 
 should be paid. An incumbrancer will not be entitled to 
 costs from the plaintiiF merely because he is a necessary 
 party, though from the frame of the suit he can get no 
 relief in it {Joyce v. De Moleyns, 3 J". §• Lat. 698). And 
 it seems that, if the assignor is not entitled to any costs, 
 neither will his assignees be so {Carr v. Henderson, 11 
 Beav. 415 ; Massey v. Moss, 1 Ha. 319). In the latter 
 case the executor was in default and bankrupt, and his 
 assignees were made parties ; and V. C. Wigram seems 
 to have thought they might have had their costs, if the 
 bill had unsuccessfully attempted to charge them with 
 specific parts of the testator's estate (p. 321). But where 
 an executor, who was an insolvent, filed a bill for 
 administration and made his assignees defendants, it was 
 held that they were entitled to separate costs ( Chilwell v. 
 Hocknell, 2 TV. B. 630). In Kitchener v. Kitchener, 13 
 Jur. 761, the costs of the Attorney General made a party 
 in respect of a reversionary interest belonging to a felon 
 were not provided for by the decree, as his right would 
 not arise till the reversion fell into possession. The costs 
 of taking out administration to a beneficiary, who had 
 mortgaged, her share for more than its value, for the mere 
 purpose of making the suit complete, were ordered to be 
 paid out of the general fund (Cotton v. Penrose, 13 Jur. 
 761). 
 
SUITS FOE ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS. 127 
 
 Residuary legatees and other persons served with the *^osts of 
 decree and obtaining an order (vmder Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. sCTved^ 
 0. 86, s. 42, r. 8) for liberty to attend the subsequent pro- J^^^^^ ^^ . 
 ceedings, are, it \YOuld seem, in the same position as to having 
 costs as persons pai'ties to the cause ; and see under the old attend pro- 
 practice, Hutchinson v. Freeman, 4 My. ^' Cr. 490. But ceedings. 
 where a nu.mber of persons in the same interest having 
 liberty to attend proceedings appear separately, only one 
 set of costs wUl be allowed ( Stevenson v. Abington, 1 1 W. 
 R. 936). If a defendant, by the decree declared to be an Costs of 
 unnecessary party, nevertheless remains before the Court „ot having 
 and attends the proceedings in chambers, he does so at his f^f^ 
 own risk {Girdlestone v. Creed,! IV. R. 228 ; Grace v. Ter- 
 rington,'2 Coll. 53); and no costs were allowed although 
 the defendant was next-of-kin to the residuary legatee, 
 who was a lunatic ( Thorp v. Thorp, 3 Mer. 116). And, 
 by 40 Cons. Ord. r. 28, parties attending any proceeding 
 in chambers without having obtained the previous leave 
 of the Judge to attend the same, are not allowed any 
 costs of such attendance unless by special order. 
 
 It is a common practice to allow residuary legatees Residuary 
 their costs out of the estate as between solicitor and client ; nol; 
 but it can only be done with the consent of all parties entitled to 
 {Blenhinsop v. Foster, 3 J*. ^ C. 207 ; Fenner v. Taylor, between 
 6 Mad. 3 ; Martin v. Maugham, 8 Jur. 609) : but in ^°^fl°^^^^^^ 
 Blenhinsop v. Foster, loc. cit., the Court refused to vary unless by 
 an order o-ivins them costs as between solicitor and client, 
 on the mere ground that it was not by consent of all. 
 
 If any of the parties to an administration suit are ^^*"°^°J 
 debtors to the estate and insolvent, their costs will be set awarded 
 oWpro tanto against the debt due from them {Harmer v. ^^,^^^J 
 Harris, 1 Russ. 155) ; and in Nicholson v. Norton, 7 Beav. against a 
 67, they were carried to the separate account of the fromhim 
 legatee instead of being paid to her. So in Cooper v. to^^lje 
 Pitcher, 4 Ha. 485, the plaintiff's costs were directed to 
 be set off against payments erroneously made by the ex- 
 ecutors to the use of the plaintiff, who, by the decree 
 
128 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUIT?. 
 
 made in the cause, was declared to have no interest in the 
 fund, but was allowed his costs. If an executor becomes 
 bankrupt in the course of the suit, his costs before 
 bankruptcy must be set off against the balance due from 
 him to the estate, but he will be entitled to his costs 
 incurred subsequently to the bankruptcy {Samuel v. 
 Jones, 2 Ha. 246). So if the bankruptcy was before 
 suit, and a sum is found due from him, no part of his 
 costs can be set off against such sum ( Cotton v. Clark, 
 16 Beav. 134). Although the executor is indebted to 
 the estate in an am'ount exceeding the amount of his 
 costs payable at a future day, if there is no reason to 
 suspect his solvency, he will be entitled to immediate 
 payment of his costs (^Stevens v. Pillen, 12 Jur. 282, 17 
 L. J. n. s. ch. 214). 
 Costs of a 'A creditor who has come in and established his debt 
 provine ™ *^® Judges' Chambers under a decree or order in a 
 his debt in suit shall be entitled to the costs of so establishing his 
 debt ; and the sum to be allowed for such costs shall be 
 fixed by the Judge, unless he shall think fit to direct the 
 taxation thereof, and the amount of such costs, or the sum 
 allowed in respect thereof, shall be added to the debt so 
 established ' (40 Cons. Ord. r. 24). 
 
 This rule does not affect the costs to which the plaintiff 
 in a creditor's suit is entitled i^Flintoff v. Haynes, 4 Ha. 
 309). 'In general a fixed sum is allowed of £1 13s. 4:d. 
 if the debt is under £5, and £2 2s. if above ' {Seton, 134). 
 Under the former practice as regulated by the 47th 
 Order of August 1847, the creditors were entitled to be 
 paid their costs in the first instance, unless the estate was 
 insolvent, in which case only they were added to their 
 debts and the assets then apportioned (^Morshead v. 
 Reynolds, 21 Beav, 638). Where an estate which was 
 insufficient had been apportioned amongst the creditors, 
 but not paid out, a creditor was allowed to come in on 
 payment of the costs of the application and of the re- 
 apportionment (Anjell V. Haddon, 1 Mad. 529). If a 
 
SUITS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS. 129 
 
 person claiming to be a creditor fails in his claim, the Costs of a 
 Court has jurisdiction to order him to pay the costs ^"j-°"- 
 thereby occasioned, and will do so (Hatch v. Seai'les, 2 liis claim 
 Sm. &; G. 157 ; Yeoman v. Haynes, 24 Beav. 157 ; Colyer creditor- 
 V. Colyer, 10 JV. JR. 748). The more proper course is to 
 ask for the costs when the claim is adjudicated on, but 
 an order for payment of them may be made on a distinct 
 summons (^Yeoman v. Haynes, loc. cit); and notwith- 
 standing the pendency of an appeal against the order 
 disallovs-ing the claim (Colyer v. Colyer, loc. cit.). In 
 Morgan v. Elstob, 4 Ha. 477, the Court gave a bond 
 creditor leave to bring an action, and, the jury having 
 given nominal damages, refused the creditor his costs 
 of making the claim and his costs of the action, but 
 gave him the costs of exceptions to the Master's report 
 disallowing the claim. Where a person made a claim 
 against the estate, and failed as against the estate, but but 
 succeeded as against the beneficial interest of the adminis- as'^a^ainsf 
 tratrix, it was held that he must pay so much of the costs th» 
 of the summons as were occasioned by the claim being tratrix. 
 made against the estate (i?e«^fe?/ V. ^en^Zey, 1 N. R. 390); 
 but in Scurrah v. Scurrah, 2 fV. R. 53, the claimant 
 was allowed to add such costs to his claim against the 
 beneficial interest. 
 
 Wherever a decree has been made in any suit for the Where a 
 administration of a deceased person's estate, any creditor action"" 
 who has commenced an action to recover his debt may be suit is 
 restrained, upon the appHcation either of the plaintiff in ^pon ^ 
 the suit or the personal representative, upon the terms of i^^eree 
 the personal representative paying the costs at law down made in 
 to the time when the creditor had notice of the decree and 5"-'^^^'^ 
 the costs of the application ; and if the creditor, instead 
 of bringing an action has filed a bill, the proceedings in 
 such suit will be stayed on the same terms {Paxton v. / 
 
 Douglass, 8 Ves. 521 ; Goate v. Fryer, 2 Cox, 202, 3 Bro. ^ 
 
 C. C. 24 ; Lawton v. Lawton, 8 IV. R. 458 ; White v. 
 Leatherdale, 1 W. R. 405 ; West v. Swinburne, 14 Jur. 
 
 K 
 
130 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 360 ; and see the earlier cases collected in the note to 
 Jackson V. Leaf, IJ. S^ fV. 229, 232). If the personal re- 
 presentative admits assets and does not dispute the debt, 
 the creditor's costs are payable at once ( Cole v. Burgess, 
 Kay, app. i. ; Davey v. Plestow, 14 Jur. 388 ; West v. 
 ISwinburne, loc. cit. ; Canham v. Neale, 26 Beav. 266). 
 But if the executor does not admit assets, he must make 
 an affidavit as to the moneys in his hands, which should be 
 forthwith brought into Court {Bookless v. Crummack, C. 
 P. C. 125), and the creditor's costs will be added to his 
 debt (Paxton v. Douglass, loc. cit. ; White v. Leatherdale, 
 loc. cit. ; Lawton v. Lawton, loc. cit. ; West v. Swinburne, 
 loc. cit. ; Canham v. Neale, loc. cit. ) ; and see the 
 form of the order in Seton, p. 887. If, on the 
 other hand, the executor admits assets, but does not 
 admit the debt, the order will be that, immediately on 
 the creditor establishing his debt, the costs be taxed and 
 paid to him by the executor {King v. King, 4: N. R. 
 474 ; and see Davey v. Plestow, loc. cit.). The rule 
 applies equally to a creditor suing in a foreign country 
 {Graham v. Maxwell, 1 Mac. Sf G. 71; Beauchamp v. 
 Marquis of Huntly, Jac. 546). It was formerly doubted 
 whether the creditor was entitled to his costs of the 
 application to restrain his action, or stay proceedings in 
 his suit {Jones v. Jones, 5 Sim. 678 ; Anon. 2 S. 8f S. 
 424 ; Curre v. Bowyer, 3 Mad. 456 ; Anon, 3 L. J. ch. 
 227 ; Karl of Portarlington v. Darner, 2 Ph. 262) ; but 
 the point is now decided in favour of the creditor (see the 
 Registrar's certificate in White v. Leatherdale, loc. cit, and 
 the other cases cited above). But if a creditor files a bill 
 after notice of decree in a former suit, it will be dismissed 
 with costs if prosecuted to a hearing {Menzies v. Connor, 
 3 Mac. 8f G. 648), even though the first suit is only a 
 next of kin's suit, and the decree does not provide for the 
 administration of the real estate {ibid.); and as to the 
 last point, see also Bush v. Windey, 13 Jur. 273. So if 
 the plaintiff at law had notice of the decree before he 
 
SUITS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS. 131 
 
 issued his writ, he mil not be entitled to any costs either 
 of the action or of the motion {Jones v. Brain, 2 Y. ^ C. 
 C. C. 170). And he will have to pay the costs of the 
 motion if he proves under the decree, and refuses to dis- 
 continue his action or suit, after having been requested to 
 do so {Graham x. 3Ia.rwi'n, loc. cit.; Beauchamp v. 
 Marquis of Hunthj, loc. cit). And in Gardner v. Garrett, 
 20 Beav. 469, it was held that mere notice of the decree 
 was sufficient grounds for making a creditor pay the costs 
 of the application to restrain him, if he prosecuted his 
 action after notice; but he was allowed to set them off 
 against his costs at law up to notice of the decree. So 
 where the plaintiff in the action was the solicitor of the 
 defendants in the suit, and prosecuted his action after 
 decree, he was ordered to pay the costs of the executors 
 of, such subsequent proceedings and the costs of the mo- 
 tion to restrain his action, the former costs to be set off 
 against his debt and the latter to be paid at once {Boston 
 V. Richardson, 3 JV. R. 432). On the other hand, it is 
 the duty of the executor or administrator to apply at 
 once to restrain the action ( Therry v. Henderson, 1 Y. 
 §• C. C. C. 481 ; Pachwood v. Maddison, I S. Sf S. 232); 
 and if he appears to, or defends the action after decree 
 {Turner v. Connor, 15 Sim. 620), or merely omits to 
 apply to restrain the creditor's proceeding with it {Bear 
 v. Smith, 16 Jur. 708), the creditor will be entitled to all 
 his costs of so doing {ibid.) ; but semble, not as against 
 other creditors, if the estate is insolvent {Sharrod v. 
 Winjield, 1 Jur. n. s. 1154, 25 L. J. ch. 176); though 
 possibly in that case against the personal representative 
 personally {ibid.). 
 
 But the second or less-advanced suit will be allowed to But if the 
 proceed if the first is so constituted as to be likely to suit seeks 
 become ineffective {Coysgarne v. Jones, Amb. 613; Laiv ""o™ *'^" 
 V. Rigby, 4 Bro. C. C. 60); or if the bill in the second relief pro- 
 suit raises a case of breach of trust, or wilful neglect and ;„ it 
 default against the executors, or in other respects seeks a <^'»"''°t ^^ 
 
 ° ^ stayed. 
 
 K 2 
 
132 COSTS IN PAETICULAE SUITS. 
 
 different relief ( Taylor v. Southgate, 4 My. §• Cr. 203 ; 
 
 Shepherd v. Twogood, T. §• R. 379). And if the plaintiff 
 
 in the less-advanced suit ultimately succeeds in obtaining 
 
 a decree, the costs of that suit are payable out of the 
 
 assets in the first suit ( Costerton v. Costerton, 2 K. 774 ; 
 
 Ulingworth v. Nelson, ibid. 776, n.). But the circumstance 
 
 of the second suit praying for relief against the real 
 
 estate, which is not directed by the decree made, is not 
 
 by itself a reason for not staying proceedings in it (^Menzies 
 
 V. Connor, 3 Mac. ^ G. 648 ; Bush v. Windey, 13 Jur. 
 
 273). On the other hand, if the plaintiff in the second 
 
 suit abandons the special relief, or fails to obtain a decree 
 
 at the hearing, he must pay the costs of his suit since 
 
 notice of the decree in the first suit, but the cost up to 
 
 that time will be paid out of the funds in the first suit 
 
 ( Taylor v. Southgate, he. cit.). 
 
 Costs in a In the same way, if a legatee's suit be prosecuted after 
 
 smt where ^^ administration decree in another suit in which the 
 
 a previous legatee might have obtained his object by petition, the 
 
 tration executor should move to stay proceedings {Packwood v. 
 
 decree has Maddison, I S. Sc S. 232) : and the suit having, in that 
 
 been made. ^ ■' , i ■ . «. 
 
 case, been brought to a hearing, neither the plaintiff nor 
 the executor were allowed any costs. Where a legatee's 
 suit is restrained after an administration decree, the costs 
 of it up to notice of decree and the costs of the appli- 
 cation wiU be paid out of the funds in Court (Jackson 
 V. Leaf, \ J. ^ W. 229), but without prejudice to the 
 creditors {ibid.). 
 Costs of a In Armstrong v. Stover, 14 Beav. 535, it was held that 
 fiUng^a^''^ if a mortgagee, instead of filing a bill to enforce his 
 bill for securities, institutes or adopts a suit for a sreneral 
 
 aaminis- ,...,._. " 
 
 tration. administration, he is seeking a relief beyond that given 
 by his contract, and the costs of the suit are to be paid 
 out of the proceeds of the estate comprised in the security, 
 in priority to the mortgagee's principal and interest ; and 
 see Wright v. Kirby, 23 Beav. 463 ; Sheppard v. Burbage, 
 22 L. T. 94 ; and the dictum of V. C. Stuart in Macrae 
 
SUITS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS. 133 
 
 V. EUerton, 6 IV. R. 851. Ou the other hand, in Aldridge 
 Y. JVesthrook, 5 Beav. 188, 193, it was held that where a 
 creditor's bill was filed by a mortgagee, who was also a 
 creditor by simple contract, he was entitled to payment of 
 his mortgage money out of the mortgaged estate, before 
 the payment of any part of the costs of the suit. And in 
 Tipping v. Power, 1 Ha. 405, which was a suit by an 
 equitable mortgagee by deposit to have his security 
 realised by sale and to administer the general real and 
 personal estate, V. C. "VVigram held that the plaintiiF was 
 entitled to the proceeds of the mortgaged premises, which 
 were insufficient, towards satisfaction of his debt ; and 
 that the general assets should then be applied, (1) in 
 retainer by the executors of a debt due to them, (2) in 
 payment of the costs of the executors as between solici- 
 tor and client, (3) in payment of the plaintiff's costs, in- 
 cluding those of the purchaser, (4) in payment of the other 
 defendants' costs ; and see Walter v. Sta7iton, 10 IV. R. 
 570, where, however, the plaintiff was a creditor by simple 
 contract as well as on ec[uitable mortgage. But qu. 
 whether a legal mortgagee asking for a sale and adminis- 
 tration is entitled to his costs in priority to the devisees 
 i^lVard V. Cartwright, Set. 294). A mortgagee is entitled Where the 
 to prove in an administration suit for the full amount of adminis- 
 his debt, and then reaKse his security for the balance *i^at'™ '^ 
 (^Mason v. Bogg, 2 Mg. tjf Cr. 443) ; and therefore, in event of 
 Tucklei/ V. Thompson, 1 J. &• H. 126, where an equitable ., 
 
 J ' ' . . . security 
 
 mortgagee filed a bill to realise his security by sale in being in- 
 the first instance, and praying that any balance should 
 be paid in due course of administration, and that, ' so 
 far as necessary,' the real and personal estate of the 
 mortgagor might be administered, V. C. Wood held that 
 the plaintiff was entitled to his principal, interest, and 
 costs in priority to the costs of the executors, the course 
 pursued by the plaintiff being for the benefit of the 
 estate. And, semble, it makes no difference in such a 
 case whether the mortgage is legal or equitable {ibid. 
 
134 
 
 COSTS IN PAETICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Costs of a 
 mortgagee 
 consenting 
 to a sale 
 of the 
 mortgaged 
 property, 
 in an 
 adminis- 
 tration 
 suit. 
 
 Costs of 
 petition 
 by tenant 
 for life. 
 
 Where the 
 assets are 
 in- 
 sufficient. 
 
 p. 130). See further as to the costs of a mortgagee 
 filing a bill for sale of his security, post, sec. vi. 
 
 If an estate is sold in an administration suit with the 
 concurrence of the mortgagee, he is entitled, whether he 
 is a party to the suit or not, to his principal, interest, 
 and costs incurred in the sale out of the proceeds, in 
 priority to all other parties {Brace v. Duchess of Marl- 
 borough, Mos. 50 ; Hepworth v. Heslop, 3 Ha. 485 ; Berry 
 V. Hebblethwaite, 4 ^. §■ J. 80 ; Crosse v. General Rever- 
 sionary Company, 3 De G. M. ^ G. 698); but if he is g, 
 defendant, the plaintiif's costs of the sale will have 
 priority over the mortgagee's general costs of the suit, 
 which will be payable out of the general assets (Berry 
 V. Hebblethwaite, lac. cit.). In Carr v. Henderson, 11 
 Beav. 415, the costs of parties properly appearing on 
 the mortgagee's petition for the payment out to him of 
 the purchase monies were postponed to his principal, 
 interest, and costs. In Wickenden v. Rayson, 4 W. R. 
 443, where the estate was sold under the mortgagee's 
 power of sale, the mortgagee, who had unsuccessfully 
 set up two other mortgages, was held entitled to retain 
 all his costs incurred by him as a mortgagee, as in taking 
 the accounts, &c., but not his other costs of the suit. 
 And in White v. Gudgeon, 30 Beav. 545, where the assets 
 consisted almost entirely of the mortgaged premises, and 
 the debt of the mortgagee (a defendant) had been reduced 
 from £1,492 to £924, the costs of all parties were directed 
 to be paid out of the mortgaged premises in priority to 
 the mortgage debt. 
 
 The costs of a petition for payment of inconie to the 
 petitioner, if in an administration suit, are payable out of 
 the income ; secus, if the fund has been paid into Court 
 under the Trustee Eelief Act {Eady v. Watson, 12 W. R. 
 682). 
 
 If the personal estate not specifically bequeathed is not 
 sufficient for payment of pecuniary legacies after payment 
 of debts and the costs of the suit, the legacies abate 
 
SUITS FOE ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS. 135 
 
 rateablr; and if the general assets are insufficient for 
 the payment of debt* and costs, the specific legacies must 
 contribute to the deficiency ratcably {Bristow v. Bristoiu, 
 5 Beav. 289 ; Coo/tso7i v. Bingham, 17 Beav. 266; Neio- 
 begin x. Bell, 23 Beav. 386). 
 
 Executors and administrators are entitled to their costs Executors 
 out of the estate in priority to those of all other parties, admiuis- 
 whether as plaintiflfs or defendants ( Tanner v. Dancey, 9 trators 
 Beav. 339) ; and even to the payment of debts, where costs in 
 the estate is insolvent (Young v. Everest, I E. 8f M. 426 ; priority to 
 Gaunt y. Taylor, 2 Ha. 413; Sanderson \. Stoildart, 11 and to 
 JV. R. 21 o; Sutton v. IVinstanley, 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. '^^^''• 
 1069), though it was formerly held that the executors of 
 an insolvent estate could not have costs, as they need not 
 have administered (Adair v. Shaw, 1 Sch. §■ Lef. 280 ; 
 Humphrey v. Morse, 2 Atk. 408 ; and see Uvedale v. 
 Uvedale, 3 Atk. 119). So an heir at law, where the real Costs of 
 estate is exhausted by creditors, will be entitled to costs ^here real 
 (^Humphrey v. Morse, loc. cit.; Tardre.u v. Howell, 2 Gijf. estate is 
 530) ; and as between solicitor and client being in the by 
 position of a trustee, whether he is plaintiff or defendant '^^^ '°^^' 
 ( Tardrew v. Howell, loc. cit. ; Shittler v. Shittler, 4 ISf. B. 
 475). Where an order had been made on further direc- 
 tions for the payment of the costs of all parties out of a 
 fund in Court, which proved insufficient for the purpose, 
 it was held that, notA\-ithstanding the order, the executors 
 vrere entitled to be paid their costs in priority ( Gaunt v. 
 Taylor, loc. cit. ; Blenkinsop v. Foster, ?> Y. &^ C. 205); 
 but see contra, Swale v. Milner, 6 Sim. 572. 
 
 The plaihtiflF in a legatee's suit, and a residuary legatee, Eesiduary 
 
 whether as plaintiflP or defendant, if they have enabled the ^^^ '^^ 
 
 estate to be distributed, are also entitled to their costs out plaintiff in 
 
 of an insufficient or insolvent estate. See Wroughton v. gu;t 
 
 Colquhoun, \DeG.k S. 357, where the estate was insuffi- entitled to 
 
 ^ . , „ costs out 
 
 cient to pay legacies; and Weston v. Clowes, 15 Sim. 610; of an 
 
 Sutton V. Winstanley, 1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 1069 ; Newman 33^°!^^°* 
 
 V. Hatch, Seton, 165; Wetenhall v. Dennis, 12 W. R. 66, 
 
136 COSTS IN PAETICULAE SUITS. 
 
 Sicus next where the estate was insolvent. But next of kin can have 
 entitled to costs Only out of undisposed-of personalty, and, there- 
 residue. £Qj,g^ where the next of kin filed a bill, and the residue, 
 which was undisposed of, was exhausted in the payment of 
 debts, they got no costs {Newhegin v. Bell, 23 Beav. 386). 
 Plaintiff If, however, there is a surplus after payment of 
 
 suit when^ Creditors, but it is insufficient for the payment of legacies 
 
 entitled ^^ f^H the plaintiff in a legatee's suit mil get costs as 
 to costs as , 1. . 1 T />, x^ . -,-, Ti 
 
 between between solicitor and client ( Cross v. Kennington, 1 1 Beav. 
 
 and'cuLt ^^' '^'Vaf-dron v. Francis,lO Ha. App. x.; Thomas v. Jones, 
 1 Dr. Sf S. 134); but as between j)arty and party only if 
 there is no surplus ( Thomas v. Jones, loc. cit. ; Wetenhall 
 V. Dennis, \2W. R. 66). And a residuary legatee plain- 
 tiflF, where there is no residue, vidll not be entitled to costs 
 as between solicitor and client {Weston v. Clowes, 15 Sim. 
 610, overruling contra, Burkitt v. Ransom, 2 Coll. 536); 
 except so far as the estate has been increased by his 
 exertions {Wroughton v. Colquhoun, 1 De G. §• S. 357), 
 and as to sales of real estates conducted by him (^Newman 
 V. Hatch, Set. 165). 
 Where the Similarly in a creditor's suit, if the fund is insufficient 
 FnT ' foi' tli^ payment of all the creditors in full, the plaintiff 
 creditor's will be entitled to costs as between solicitor and client 
 will hare {Stanton V. Hatfield, 1 K. 358 ; Tootal v. ^picer, 4 Sim. 
 betweSi ^^^' ^°°^ '^- ^^«^«'"*' 2R.^M. 687; Bissett v. Burgess, 
 solicitor 23 Beav. 278 ; Goldsmith v. Russell, 5 De G. M. §• G. 
 cien , ggg. Thomas V. Jones, 1 Dr. §• S. 134); and the suf- 
 ficiency of the estate for the payment of debts is to be 
 looked at, after allomng the plaintijfF costs as between 
 party and party {Sutton v. Doggett, 3 Beav. 9). But the 
 insufficiency of the estate is the only case in which costs 
 as between solicitor and client are allowed to a plaintifi" in 
 a creditor's suit {Brodie v. Bolton, 3 My. Sf K. 168). In 
 Young v. Everest, 1 R. ^ M. 426; and Rowlands v. 
 Tucker, ibid. 635, it was held that, if the assets were in- 
 sufficient for the payment of the specialty creditors, a 
 plaintiff, simple contract creditor, was not entitled to any 
 
SUITS FOR ADMINISTEATION OF ASSETS. 137 
 
 costs. But those cases -were disapproved of in LarUns v. 
 Paxton, 2 Mij. ^- K. 320, where it was held that the 
 plaintilF, under such circumstances, was entitled to his 
 costs ; and, semble, as between solicitor and client {Barker 
 V. JVardle, 2 BIy. ^y A'. 818 ; Richardson v. Jenkins, 17 
 Jur. 447). But the plaintiff has no right to withhold the 
 order for payment of the creditors from them for the 
 purpose of enforcing a contribution towards his extra 
 costs from them {Shortley v. Selby, 5 Mad. 447; Lechmere 
 V. Brazier, 1 Russ. 72). Creditors, who had come in, but Where 
 thi'ough association with the administrator obtained pay- contribute 
 ment in full, were nevertheless held bound to contribute, to 
 under the direction for that purpose, towards the plaintiff's gggts 
 costs, the fund having proved insufficient to pay them 
 {Thompson v. Cooper, 2 Coll. 87). A direction to con- 
 tribute to the plaintiff's costs does not extend to costs 
 occasioned by a claim unsuccessfully raised by him 
 {Dunning v. Hards, 2 Ph. 294). However, the direction 
 for contribution, which was formerly inserted in every 
 decree made in a creditor's suit, is now omitted {Set. 134). 
 
 But if the plaintiff in a creditor's suit, after information if plaintiff 
 that there are no assets applicable to the payment of his afterlotice 
 debt, persists in prosecuting his suit, he does so at his own that the 
 risk ; and if the information turns out to be correct, he insuflBcient 
 will have to pay the costs of it {Bluett v. Jessop, Jac. for his 
 
 -^ payment. 
 
 240 ; King v. Bryant, 4 Beav. 460 ; Fuller v. Green, 24 
 Beav. 217 ; King v. Hammett, Hi. J. n. s. ch. 14, 5 
 Jur. 1052). But in Sullivan v. Bevan, 20 Beav. 399, 
 where the plaintiff did not receive notice of the state of 
 the assets and the claim of a superior creditor until after 
 decree, he was allowed his costs up to notice. And in 
 Robinson v. Elliott, 1 Russ. 599, the bill was dismissed 
 without costs, as the executrix was charged with more 
 than she admitted by her answer, but there were not any 
 assets applicable to payment of the plaintiff's debt. 
 
 So also in a legatee's suit ( Ottley v. Gilby, 8 Beav. 602) ; 
 and see further, ante, sec. i. 
 
138 
 
 COSTS IN PAETICULAK SUITS. 
 
 WTiere the 
 Attorney- 
 General 
 sues 
 
 without a 
 relator. 
 
 Where 
 there is a 
 relator. 
 
 Costs of 
 relators. 
 
 Section III. — Suits relating to Charities. 
 
 The Court has jurisdiction to order defendants to a 
 charity information, filed by the Attorney General ex 
 officio without a relator, to pay the costs of the Attorney 
 General {Attorney General v. Ashburnham, I S. Sf S. 
 394). A charity information is not within the provisions 
 of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 90, and the Attorney General cannot 
 be made to pay costs in such suits {Attorney General 
 V. Dean §■ Canons of Windsor, 8 Ho. Lds. Ca. 369, 
 385; and see post, ch. vi., s. ii.); and see before the 
 Act, Attorney General v. Lord Chesterfield, 18 Jur. 
 686. Where the Attorney General sues without a 
 relator, the Court will make a decree for payment of 
 costs between co-defendants {Attorney General v. Cor- 
 poration of Chester, 14 Beav. 338). In the case cited, 
 the Court gave the trustees, defendants, their costs as 
 between solicitor and client out of the estate, and directed 
 that such costs as between party and party should be re- 
 paid by the corporation. 
 
 Where there is a relator, a brief to the Attorney 
 General, as well as to two other counsel, will be allowed 
 on taxation as between party and party {Attorney General 
 V. Drapers^ Company, 4: Beav. 305). But if the Attorney 
 General attends the proceedings under the decree by a 
 separate solicitor, without an order of the Court for so 
 doing, he will not be allowed a separate set of costs 
 {Attorney General v. Dove, T. ^ R. 328). In the case 
 cited it was at the request of the Master, who suspected 
 collusion between the relator and the defendants. 
 
 It was formerly held that an information respecting a 
 charity established by the Crown should be dismissed with 
 costs, if it failed ; but the Court would not dismiss one 
 respecting a private charity, but would make a decree to 
 establish it (see Attorney General y. Smart, 1 Ves. 72) ; 
 and the case of Attorney General v. Gleg, 1 Atk. 356, is 
 
SUITS RELATING TO CHARITIES. 139 
 
 said to have been the first instance of an information of 
 the latter kind being disuiissed with costs. But such dis- 
 tinction has long since been lost sight of in practice. 
 Where the Court sees that some relief is required for the 
 charity, it will make the proper decree, whatever be the 
 frame of the suit ; but with reference to the costs will 
 look at the pleadings {Attorney General v. Hartle; , 2 J. 
 (.y W. 369). So much of the information as contains un- 
 proved charges of misconduct against the trustees will be 
 dismissed with costs (Attorney General v. Hartley, lac. cit. ; 
 Attorney General v. Holland, 2 V. Sf C. 683 ; Attorney 
 General v. Cullum. 1 K. 118). And if the whole of the 
 relief given might have been obtained by a petition under 
 Sir S. Eomilly's Act (59 Geo. III., c. 91) no costs mil be 
 given to the relators up to the hearing {Attorney General 
 V. Holland, loc. cit. ; Attorney General v. Cullum, loc. cit. ; 
 Attorney General v. Berry, 11 Jur. 114). In Attorney 
 General v. Bolton, 3 Anst. 820, the principal part of the 
 relief prayed was abandoned at the hearing, but the 
 Court, holding that the information had some foundation, 
 said that the relator should not pay costs. But where the 
 information appears to proceed from a feehng of private 
 revenge in the relator, it will be dismissed with costs 
 {Attorney General v. Middleton, 2 Ves. 326). \n Attorney 
 General v. Lewis, 8 Beav. 179, where a defendant who had 
 been ordered to pay costs proved insolvent, the Court, on 
 a subsequent application, ga^e the Attorney General and 
 trustees their costs out of the estate. 
 
 T\Tiere the suit is by information and bill, and the Where the 
 relator in the former is also plaintiff in the latter, the bill ^fo^^a^ 
 may be dismissed with costs, though relief for the benefit tion and 
 of the charity is given on the information {Attorney 
 General v. Vivian, 1 Russ. 226) ; but see Attorney 
 General v. Oglender, 1 Ves. Junr. 246. 
 
 "Where the costs of all parties are given out of the ^"^^"'jg^^ 
 charity fund, they are frequently directed to be taxed as costs 
 between solicitor and client {Moggridge v. Thackwell, 1 aUowed; 
 
140 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAE SUITS. 
 
 but no 
 rule to that 
 effect. 
 
 Eelator 
 usually 
 entitled to 
 solicitor 
 and client 
 costs; 
 
 and, in 
 
 special 
 
 cases, to 
 
 costs, 
 
 charges, 
 
 and 
 
 expenses 
 
 Ves. 36, 88 ; Bishop of Hereford v. Adams, 7 Ves. 331 ; 
 Attorney General v. Carte, 1 Dick. 113, Beames, app. 2; 
 Mills V. Farmer, 19 Ves. 491 ; Gaffney v. Hevey, 1 Dr. 
 §• Walsh, 25). But there is no rule that in suits relating 
 to charity property costs shall be allowed as between 
 solicitor and client {Aria v. Emanuel, 9 W. R. 366 ; and 
 see Carter v. Green, 3 K. 8f J. 608). 
 
 The relator, however, if the suit was a proper one, is 
 generally entitled to costs as between solicitor and client. 
 ' The relator in a charity information, where there is 
 nothing to impeach the propriety of the suit, and there • 
 are no special circumstances to justify a special order, 
 is, upon obtaining a decree for the charity, entitled to his 
 costs as between solicitor and client, and to be paid the 
 difference between the amount of such costs and the 
 amount of the costs which he may recover from the de- 
 fendants, out of the charity estate ' (per Lord Langdale, 
 M. E., Attorney General v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297, 303) ; but 
 see Attorney General v. Drummond, 3 Dr. §■ W. 162. 
 In Attorney General v. Fishmongers' Company, 1 K. 492, 
 where the defendants had technically been guilty of a 
 breach of trust, but no loss whatever had resulted to the 
 charity, the Court made a decree and gave the relators 
 costs against the company, but refused them their extra 
 costs out of the funds, as the information was not for the 
 benefit of the charity. The relator is also sometimes 
 allowed his charges and expenses, in addition to his costs 
 of suit as between solicitor and client ( Osborne v. Denne, 
 7 Ves. 424 ; Attorney General v. Corporation of Winchester, 
 3 L. J. 64, C. P. C. 502 ; Attorney General v. Skinners' 
 Company, Jac. 630). In the last-cited case the costs of all 
 parties, including the costs of appeal, to be taxed as be- 
 tween solicitor and client, were ordered to be paid out of 
 the rents together with ' any costs, charges, and expenses 
 reasonably and properly incurred by the relators to enable 
 them to institute and prosecute the suit.' And in Attorney 
 Generals. Tyler, C. P.C. 358, the relator being changed 
 
SUITS RELATING TO CHARITIES. 141 
 
 before the caiise was at issue, was allowed out of the fund 
 his ' costs, charges, and expenses preparatory to, and of 
 and relating to the suit and of that application.' And 
 see the unreported cases cited in Attorney General v. 
 Kerr, loc. cit. But it is only in special cases, depending 
 on their peculiar circumstances, to be brought forward 
 and established by e\'idence that such additional charges 
 and expenses ought to be allowed {Attorney General v. 
 Kerr, loc. cit., where Lord Langdale refused to allow 
 them). 
 
 The relator should not take any proceeding in the Costs of 
 cause after decree without the authority of the Court; fngrunder 
 see Attorney General x. Ironmongers'' Company, 10 Beav. a decree, 
 194, where the Court refused the relator his costs of issu- without 
 ing advertisements and collectina; information with a view '^® ,. 
 
 ^ . » _ sanction of 
 
 to the scheme, without the authority of the Master ; but the Court. 
 as the proceeding was beneficial to the charity, allowed 
 
 his costs out of pocket. The costs of obtaining an Act Costs of 
 
 of Parliament for the regulation of a charity were allowed, an Act of 
 
 though the sanction of the Court to the application was Pai'lia- 
 
 .. ^ ^ ment for 
 
 not previously obtained {Attorney General v. Vigor, 2 regulation 
 Russ. 519; Downing College Case, ibid.); but seews, where °\^ -^ 
 the application was unsuccessful, though not on the merits 
 {Attorney General v. Earl of Mansfield, 2 Russ. 501, 
 518). But where an unsuccessful application to Parlia- 
 ment had the previous sanction of the Court, the costs of 
 it were allowed {Re Bedford Charity, 29 Z.. T. 5); and 
 also the costs of a subsequent application for leave to 
 introduce a fresh bill, which was refused {ibid.). 
 
 Where a relator refused to proceed further ivith an "Wlere 
 
 ^ . . relator is 
 
 information, new relators who offered an indemnity for all changed 
 past and future costs were substituted {Attorney General ^ausTil at 
 V. Corporation of Cashel, Sau. Sf Sc. 333). And in issue. 
 Attorney Generals. Tyler, C. P. C. 358, the relator being 
 changed before the cause was at issue was allowed his 
 costs, charges, and expenses out of the fund. If a solicitor Where 
 has given the relator an indemnity for costs, or has used 
 
142 COSTS IN PARTICTTLAE SUITS. 
 
 not hon& Ms name \^athoiit authority, though afterwards assented 
 
 ^' to, the Court will order the information to be taken off 
 
 the file with costs against the relator and solicitor 
 
 (^Attorney General v. Skinners' Company C. P. C. 7). As 
 
 to security for costs to be given by a relator on the 
 
 ground of poverty, see ante, p. 10. 
 
 Heir at As to the costs of the heir at law and next of kin in 
 
 law and charity cases, see post, ch. vi. 
 
 kin. The costs of persons appearing, in pursuance of pubHc 
 
 Other notice, on an application for the appointment of new 
 
 trustees under the provisions of the Municipal Corpora- 
 tions Act, for the purpose of aiding the Attorney General 
 in securing fit appointments, are not allowed out of the 
 charity estate (^Re Gloucester Charities, 10 Ha. app. iii.) 
 Costs of The general principles, on which the costs of trustees 
 
 chTritr ™ ™ charity suits are disposed of, do not differ from those 
 cases. observed in other cases, and will be more conveniently 
 
 discussed hereafter (see ch. vi.). However, in Attorney 
 General v. Drummond, 3 Dr. §• W. 162, Sir E. Sugden, 
 L. C. drew a distinction between private trustees and the 
 trustees of a charity, and observed that to refuse the 
 latter costs would be to make them pay for the errors 
 of their predecessors ; and in that case he allowed the 
 trustees their costs, though held to be guilty of a 
 breach of trust. It should be observed, however, that 
 the trustees had derived no personal advantage from the 
 breach of trust, which consisted merely in the admission 
 of persons not objects of the charity to the benefit of it ; 
 but see Lady Hewley's case (^Shore v. Wilson, 9 CI. §• F. 
 355), on the authority of which Attorney General v. 
 Drummond was decided, and where the trustees were 
 not allowed their costs. Where trustees who had been 
 ordered to pay the costs of a suit personally paid them 
 out of the charity funds, they were ordered to refund 
 with four per cent, interest {Attorney General v. Daugars, 
 12 W. R. 363). 
 A Corporation, as trustees for a charity, may be charged 
 
SUITS RELATING TO CHARITIES. 143 
 
 'v\'ith the costs of the suit, payable out of their corporate Where a 
 funds (see Attorneij General v. Haberdashers' Company, tio'^are" 
 2 Bro. P. C. 370, where they had mismanaged tlie charity ; trustees. 
 and Salop v. Attorney General, ibid. 402, where the 
 Corporation had appointed a schoolmaster contrary to the 
 particular tenor of their charter). It is the duty of a 
 Corporation to examine their documents before putting in 
 their answer ; and having alleged ignorance as to facts, 
 which were afterwards discovered from the scheduled 
 documents, they were, therefore, charged with the costs 
 of the suit {Attorney General v. East Retford, 2 My. 
 &,■ K. 35); and see Borough of Hertford v. Poor of Hert- 
 ford, 2 Bro. P. C. 377, where the Corporation concealed 
 e'S'idence. A new Corporation as altered by the Muni- 
 cipal Corporations Act (5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 76) is a con- 
 tinuation of and succeeds to the rights and liabilities of 
 the old (^Attorney General v. Kerr, 2 Beav. 420 ; Attorney 
 General v. Corporation of Leicester, 9 Beav. 546). In 
 the former case, the present Corporation received no costs 
 of a suit to set right a breach of trust committed by their 
 predecessors ; in the latter case they were visited with 
 costs. But see Attorney General v. Corporation of Neto- 
 hury, cited in Shelford on Mortmain, 473, n. ; and Attorney 
 General v. Caius College, 2 K. 150, as to the difficulty of 
 charging Corporations with the defaults of their pre- 
 decessors. Where the charity had fallen into desuetude, 
 and the Corporation funds had benefited by the non- 
 application, the Corporation were ordered to pay the costs 
 of the suit, except of settUng a new scheme {Attorney 
 General v. Mercers'' Company, 2 My. §• K. 634). In Where a 
 Attorney General v» Caius College, loc. cit., the Court, ^^^^^^ jj^g 
 notwithstanding long misappropriation, there being a large ^^^f" hen&- 
 accumulated fund through the economical management of charity. 
 the college, gave them their costs out of it. But in 
 Solicitor General v. Coiporation of Bath, 13 Jur. 866, 18 
 L. J. n. s. ch. 275, where the Corporation had con- 
 founded the boundaries of the charity lands with their 
 
144 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Where the 
 estate in 
 litigation 
 is lost to 
 the cha- 
 rity, the 
 trustees 
 cannot 
 have costs 
 out of it. 
 
 Trustees 
 
 should not 
 
 except 
 
 where 
 
 Attorney 
 
 General 
 
 has 
 
 excepted. 
 
 The costs 
 of one 
 parish 
 formed 
 out of 
 another. 
 
 Costs, how 
 payable 
 out of the 
 funds or 
 estates of 
 the 
 charity. 
 
 own, but the charity had benefited by the lands being let, 
 in breach of trust, on building leases, V. C. Wigram 
 thought it was not a case for following Attorney General 
 V. Caius College, and held that the Corporation ought to 
 pay the costs of that part of the suit, but instead of so 
 directing gave them no costs of the suit generally, to 
 avoid the necessity of apportioning and setting off the 
 costs. Although the breach of trust is in the result 
 beneficial to the cestui que trust, ■ he is nevertheless 
 entitled to the costs of an enquiry respecting it, as until 
 then he does not know whether it be so or not (ibid.). 
 
 In Attorney General v. Grainger, 7.fF. R. 684, certain 
 charity lands were held to have been lost through breach 
 of condition ; the Attorney General, in an ex officio 
 information, appealed unsuccessfully, and it was held that 
 the trustees, defendants, could not have costs either from 
 the Attorney General or out of the estate, which was no 
 longer in their possession. 
 
 Trustees filing exceptions similar to those filed by the 
 Attorney General were not allowed the costs of them; 
 and the principal defendants, though charged with costs, 
 received their extra costs, occasioned by the double sets of 
 exceptions, out of the estate (Attorney General v. Ward, 
 11 Beav. 203). 
 
 Where one parish had been formed out of another sub- 
 sequently to a charitable gift to the original parish, the 
 second parish was treated as an incumbrancer on the 
 original one, and the two were allowed one set of costs 
 only {Attorney General v. Earl Craven, March 1860, A. 
 508). 
 
 The costs, if necessary, will be directed to be raised by 
 mortgage of a portion of the charity estates {Re Saffron 
 Walden Charities, Set. 353, where the form of order is 
 given; Attorney General v. Atherstone School, cited in Shelf. 
 onMortmain, 478 ; ReLambeth Charities, Nov. 1850, unre- 
 ported) ; but semble, the Court is unwilling, except upon a 
 very special case, to order a sale of charity estates {Attorney 
 
SUITS RELATING TO CHARITIES. 145 
 
 General \. Mayor, S,-c. of Newark-upon-Trent, 1 Ha. 395). 
 It is more regular and proper, in the first instance at least, 
 to charge the costs on the fund recovered by the informa- 
 tion ; but the Court will, if justice to the relator or the 
 interests of the charity require it, direct the costs to be 
 paid out of the funds of the charity generally {Attorney 
 General v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297). In Attorney General v. Where 
 Skinners' Company, 2 Russ. 407, 446, the costs were Be^eraf*' 
 apportioned between two estates as to one of which the charities. 
 company failed, and as to the other of which they suc- 
 ceeded in their claim to the surplus income, except the 
 costs of a scheme relating only to one estate. The costs 
 of settling a scheme for all the charities in a town were 
 ordered to be ultimately borne by all rateably, but for the 
 present to be paid out of an existing fund belonging to 
 three of the charities only {Re Stafford Charities, 26 Beav. 
 517; and see Re Saffron Walden Charities, Set. 350). 
 
 The Court has power, under Sir S. Romilly's Act (59 Wlprethe 
 Geo. III. c. 91), to dismiss a petition with costs; see exercises a 
 Chertsey Market case, 6 Price, 261, where the application statutory 
 was held to be vexatious. But the Court has no power diction ; 
 to award the costs of proceedings under the Bedford 
 Charity Act (53 Geo. III. c. 101) {Re Bedford Charity, 
 2 Swans. 532). On an appeal to the Lord Chancellor, or 
 as v-isitor of a charitable foundation on behalf of the Crown, chan- 
 he can award costs ; see Queen's College case, Jac. ] 9, f^®'^""" 
 
 . .' ' ' hears an 
 
 where they were given out of the funds of the college. appeal as 
 Commissioners of charitable uses, under 43 Eliz. c. 4, c™^-g_ 
 had no power to award costs {Aylet v. Dodd, 2 Atk. 238) ; sioners of 
 but the Lord Chancellor could do so on appeal from their „ses under 
 decision {ibid. ; and see Burford v. Lenthall, 2 Atk. 550). *^ ^^'^■' 
 The lessees must pay the costs of a suit to set aside an Costs of 
 improvident lease of charity land {Attorney General v. ^";^e°^!' 
 Lord Hotham, T. ^ R. 220 ; Attorney General v. Owen, proper 
 10 Ves. 562). In the latter case the decree was under 
 special circumstances made without costs, but Lord Eldon 
 said it should not be a precedent. In Attorney General 
 
146 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 V. Greenhill, 3 N. R. 236, where the lease had been 
 made in pursuance of a direction which the Court held to 
 be void as tending to a perpetuity, the Master of the 
 Eolls thought that the relators, the lessors, should pay all 
 the lessee's costs. 
 
 The Court has no authority to make an order adversely 
 with regard to the costs of proceedings before the Attorney 
 General not under its direction or sanction {Attorney 
 General v. Harper, 8 L. J. n. s. ch. 12). 
 
 Section IV. — Cross Suits. 
 Cross bill ' The costs of a biU for discovery filed by any defendant 
 covery." ^ ^ ^^ fo^ relief shall be costs in the original cause, un- 
 less the Court shall otherwise direct ' (40 Cons. Ord. r. 14). 
 This rule applies only where the cross bill is in aid of 
 the defence to an original bill {Heming v. Dingwall, 2 Ph. 
 212). "Where the original cause had been transferred 
 from the court of the V. C. of England to that of 
 V. C. Knight Bruce, but the cross cause had not been 
 transferred, it was held that the case was not within the 
 order, and the V. C. of England disposed of the costs by 
 giving them to the defendant {Penny v. Watts, 17 Sim. 
 45). If the plaintiff dismisses his bdl before the hearing, 
 such dismissal will, it is conceived, carry, under the above 
 order, the costs of the cross cause also, though it was other- 
 wise held under the former practice ( Westfield v. Skipwith, 
 1 Ph. 277, affirming s. c. 13 Sim. 265). If a cross bill be 
 filed bona fide, the costs of it will still be costs in the 
 original cause, though all the discovery obtained was not 
 made available {Wall v. Robinson, 10 Beav. 73, s. c. 
 sub nam. Flight v. Robinson, 16 L. J. n. s. ch. 178). If 
 the plaintiff in the cross cause insists on an answer being 
 put in after a decree has been made in the original suit, 
 the defendant, on putting in his answer, should, it seems, 
 get his costs {Penny v. Watts, loc. cit.). 
 Cross biU The costs of a cross cause for relief, as weU as for dis- 
 
SUITS FOR DISCOVERY, ETC. 147 
 
 coveiy, follow the general rule for disposal of the costs of for relief. 
 a suit. In Wright v. Hoioard, 1 S. .y S. 190, 205, relief 
 was given on a cross bill, to a vendor's bill for specific 
 performance, seeking to have the contract cancelled, but 
 without costs, on account of the bill containing unsup- 
 ported charges of fraud. If a cause and cross cause are 
 both dismissed with costs, the costs of evidence taken in 
 one cause and used in both should be paid for in the cause 
 in which it was taken ( Corporation of Arundel v. Holmes, 
 4 Beav. 325). 
 
 A plaintiff in a cross cause, where it has been agreed 
 that the evidence in one suit shall be read in the other, 
 cannot dismiss his own bill with costs {Booth v. Lei/cester, 
 1 Keen, 247). 
 
 A plaintiff to a cross bill cannot be required to give 
 security for costs {ante, p. 12). 
 
 Section V. — Suits for Discovery or Perpetuation of 
 Testimony. 
 
 Unless the bill is a cross bill (as to which, see ante. Plaintiff 
 p. 145), the plaintiff pays the costs of a suit for discovery P''^^ *®^ 
 {Simmonds v. Lord Kinnaird,A Ves. 746; Perkins v. Lowe, suit for 
 13 Pr. 193). However, in Weymouth v. Boyer, 1 Ves. ^^'^"'''^^y- 
 Junr. 423, Buller, J. expressed an opinion, that the rule 
 that the plaintiff pays the costs in all cases was too broad, 
 and that he ought to do so only where he files his bill 
 without having applied to the defendant, and been refused 
 the discovery sought. Mr. Beames could find no case in 
 which this doctrine had been supported {Beames, p. 28). 
 In Perry v. Newenham, 1 Mol. 72, the Lord Chancellor 
 said, that a landlord having lost his counterpart has a 
 right to discovery from his tenant, and the tenant refusing 
 to permit a copy of the lease to be made on the landlord's 
 application, and at his expense, shall pay the costs of the 
 bill of discovery. But this decision might be supported 
 
 L 2 
 
148 COSTS IN PAETICULAE SUITS. 
 
 on the grounds of the relation between the parties. It 
 
 may be added that if a discovery bill prayed for costs 
 
 against the defendant, it would be a bill for relief as well 
 
 as discovery, and a decree must be made in it. 
 
 A dis- ^ suit purely for discovery is never brought to a hear- 
 
 suit not ing, but the only order made in it is that the plaintiff may 
 
 a'hearin *" P*^ *° ^^^ defendant the costs of it ( Woodcock v. Kiuff, 1 
 
 but order Atk. 286) ; and on putting in a full answer, the defendant 
 
 course" on ^^ entitled to this order, as an order of course {Rhodes v. 
 
 answer Hayne, 9 Jur. 175 ; Coventry v. Bentley, 3 Mer. 677> 
 
 being put ^^ '^ . , , . i ■, i i • ^ i 
 
 in, for pay- -tsut it cannot be obtained until the usual time lor the 
 ment of plaintiff to except to the answer has expired {Rhodes v. 
 Hayne, loc. cit. ; Baring v. Prinsep, 1 Mad. 526 ; but see 
 contra, Stewart v. Sample, 5 Ves. 86); although the 
 plaintiff has otherwise admitted that the answer is not 
 insufficient {Rhodes v. Hayne, loc. cit.). The defendant's 
 right to his costs is not waived by his subsequently accept- 
 ing the costs of an amendment, nor by his neglecting to 
 serve the plaintiff with the order for payment of costs, 
 until after service of the order to amend {Coventry v. 
 Bentley, loc. cit.). And an order for payment of costs by 
 the plaintiff is regular, though he has become bankrupt 
 {Hibberson v. Fielding, 2 S. 8f S. 371). Semble the 
 plaintiff must pay the costs though no interrogatories are 
 served, the defendant having given the discovery required 
 without answer {Fitzgerald v. Bult, 9 Ha. app. Ixv.). A 
 prayer that ' such further order may be made as the 
 nature of the case may require,' does not convert a bill, 
 otherwise for discovery only, into one for relief {South- 
 Eastern Railway Company v. Submarine Telegraph Com- 
 pany, 17 Jur. 1044); and, therefore, a motion by de- 
 fendant for dismissal was refused as unnecessary, but 
 without costs on account of the unusual form of the 
 prayer {ibid.). The defendant is entitled to costs only as 
 between party and party {Beames, 33). 
 Where biU If the discovery required is in aid of the defence to an 
 an iuterun actiou at law, and the bill prays an interim injunction, the 
 
SUITS FOE DISCOVERY, ETC. 149 
 
 tlefendant, if he files affidavits and unsuccessfully resists injunction 
 
 .]•.,. , , „ , . , t „ to restrain 
 
 tne injunction, must pay the costs of the motion {Lovell v. an action ; 
 Galloioay, 19 Beav. 643); though the contrary seems to 
 have been held in Noble v. Garland, 1 Mad. 344. Where oracom- 
 the bill also prays a commission to examine witnesses, the examine 
 costs cannot be obtained until the return of the commis- '"^taesses ; 
 
 sion {Anon, 8 Ves. 69 ; Banbury v. , 9 Ves. 103). 
 
 And it seems that the defendant will be entitled to his 
 costs of discovery, though he has examined witnesses in 
 chief under the commission {London Assurance Company 
 v. Hankey, 1 Anst. 9) ; so also in a suit for discovery and or to 
 to perpetuate testimony, where the defendant examines testimony. 
 vdta&sse&{Skrine\. Powell, \5 Sim.SV); notwithstanding 
 Anon, 8 Ves. 69. 
 
 In a suit to perpetuate testimony the defendant is Costs of 
 entitled to his costs from the plaintiff, if he has not perpetuate 
 examined witnesses of his own, or only cross-examined testimony. 
 the plaLatifi''s witnesses; but if the defendant examines 
 mtnesses in chief no costs are given on either side 
 {Blinkehome'v. Feast, 1 Dick. 153; Bidulph v. Bidulph, 
 2 P. W. 285 ; Berney v. Eyre, 3 Ath 387 ; Earl of 
 Abergavenny v. Powell, 1 Mer. 434) ; and the costs of 
 perpetuatiug testimony merely are never given against 
 the defendant {Clifton v. Orchard, lAtk. 610). In Lady 
 Codrington v. England, 2 Ath 167, Lord Hardwicke 
 seems to have thought that no costs on either side were 
 cnven in such suits, but he afterwards admitted the 
 general rule (see Berney v. Eyre, loc. cit.). The de- 
 fendant is entitled to his costs immediately after the com- 
 mission is executed on the mere allegation that he has not 
 examined witnesses in chief* {Foulds v. Midgley, 1 V. 
 §• B. 138). The order is made ex parte, and, therefore, 
 
 * This was of importance, formerly, when it was not known until pub- 
 lication, whether the defendant had examined or not. The 16th Kule of 
 the Order of 5th Peb. 1861, provides that 'in suits to perpetuate testimony 
 evidence shall continue to be taken according to the now existing practice : ' 
 and see Ellice v. Boupell, 2 N. R. 3, 1 Sm. Ch. Fr. 769. 
 
150 
 
 COSTS IN PAETICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Suits to 
 perpetuate 
 testimony 
 not brought 
 to a 
 hearing. 
 
 Order 
 where 
 plaintiff 
 does not 
 
 Costs of a 
 
 where it was made upon notice, the costs of service were 
 disallowed on taxation {Wathins v. Atchison, 10 Ha. 
 app. xlvi.). The defendant is entitled, on a bill to per- 
 petuate testimony, to his costs of answering, though no 
 answer is required {Lecky v. Murray, 1 B. Sf B. 391). 
 The costs of a bill to perpetuate testimony to a will were 
 allowed though the defendant had filed a cross bill to set 
 
 aside the will ( v. Andrews, Barn. 333). Where 
 
 a demurrer to the bill was allowed after the plaintiiF had 
 obtained an ex parte order to examine witnesses de hene 
 esse, the plaintiff paid the costs of the examination in 
 chief, but not of the cross-examination {Dew v. Clarke, 1 
 S. §• S. 115). 
 
 A suit to perpetuate testimony, like one for discovery, 
 ought not to be brought to a hearing (9 Cons. Ord. r. 7) ; 
 and if it is so, the bill will be dismissed with costs, but so 
 as not to prejudice the plaintiff in perpetuating the wit- 
 nesses' testimony {Anon. Amb. 236, 2 Ves. 497 ; Hall v. 
 Hoddesdon, 2 P. W. 162 ; Mackfell v. Hunt, 2 Mad. 34, 
 n.). In the anonymous case just cited, it was said that 
 the bill might be dismissed for want of prosecution at any 
 time before replication and examination of witnesses ; 
 but this seems not to be so {Barton v. Rock, 22 Beav. 81 ; 
 Beavan v. Carpenter, 11 Sim. 22). Instead of dismissal, 
 an order will be made that plaintiff file replication and 
 proceed to examine his witnesses and complete such 
 examination within a certain day, or in default the plaintiff 
 pay to the defendant the costs of the suit {Beavan v. 
 Carpenter, loc. cit. ; Wright v. Tatham, 2 Sim. 459 ; 
 Barham v. Longman, ibid. n.). But if the bill prays also 
 for relief, as that a certain copy of a will may be estab- 
 lished as a true copy, it may be dismissed for want of prose- 
 cution ( Vaughan v. Fitzgerald, 1 Sch. 8f L. 316) ; an orcjer 
 was there made to amend by striking out the relief and 
 then for payment of costs according to the usual course. 
 
 As to the costs of suits to establish a will, see post, 
 ch. vi. sec. v. 
 
 The principle that the plaintiff pays the costs of dis- 
 
SUITS FOR DOWER. 151 
 
 covery applies where a person is made defendant merely defendant, 
 for purposes of discovery to a bill seeking relief against ^f^ ^° 
 other parties (40 Cons. Ord. r. 16); but such defendant discoTery 
 cannot, upon putting in his answer, move for his costs at bill fo^ 
 once {Attorney General v. Burcli, 4 Mad. 178 ; but see '^^^'^^• 
 JniUams V. TJlUiams, 2 Bro. C. C. 87). But qucere, 
 where a corporation or public company are defendants 
 to a bill, and their secretary or other officer is joined 
 as a defendant for the purpose of discovery. On prin- 
 ciple it would seem that the plaintiff should pay the 
 costs of the secretary or officer in the first instance, 
 though possibly if successful he might have them over 
 from the company. 
 
 If a person who is a mere witness is made a defendant, A witness 
 he will be dismissed with- costs, but as between party and ^n^^ut ' 
 party only (Z)e Combe v. De Combe, 3 Jur. n. s. 712; entitled to 
 Attioood v. Small, 6 CI. §• F. 232 ; Cockell v. Tai/lor, 15 party coste 
 Beav. 128). o^- 
 
 In Dodson v. Juda, 10 Ves. 31, it was held, on the Eevivorof 
 authority of Gould v. Barnes, 1 Dick. 133, that a suit for ^-^^^^^ 
 discovery, becoming abated, could not be revived by the 
 defendant for payment of the costs. This decision 
 appears to have been right on the general principle that 
 there can be no revivor for costs alone (see post, ch. viii.) ; 
 but the point said to have been decided in Gould v. 
 . Barnes, loc. cit., namely, that the plaintiff could not revive 
 a discovery suit against the defendant's representative, 
 appears in fact to have been decided the other way 
 {Beames, 199). 
 
 The costs of a suit for discovery cannot be set off Set-off. 
 ao'ainst the costs of an action at law in which the de- 
 fendant in equity has been non-suited ( Wright v. Mudie, 
 1 ,S'. §• S. 266). 
 
 Section VI. — Suits for Dower. 
 
 No costs are given of a suit simply for assignment of No costs of 
 dower where the right is admitted {Lucas v. Culcraft, 1 
 
152 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 assignment 
 of dower ; 
 
 Unless 
 defendant 
 has kept 
 dowress 
 out, or 
 disputes 
 her title. 
 
 Bro. C. C. 133), in analogy to the practice at law on a 
 writ of dower {Mundy v. Mundy, 2 Ves. Junr. 128). 
 But the plaintiff will be entitled to her costs where the 
 defendant has vexatiously kept her out of her dower 
 ( Worgan v. Ryder, 1 V. §" B. 20) ; or where the plain- 
 tiff's title is unsuccessfully resisted {Fry v. Noble, 4 W. 
 R. 145, affg. s. c. 20 Beav. 606). So a defendant who 
 did not admit the plaintiff's title until after the bill was 
 filed, and then without tendering costs, was ordered to 
 pay costs up to the hearing {Harris v. Harris, 1 N. R. 
 43, 11 W. R. Q2). However, in Bamford v. Bamford, 5 
 Ha. 203, where the defendant disputed the title on in- 
 formation as to the death of the plaintiff's husband, who 
 was a convict, derived from the returns of the Secretary 
 of State, but which proved to be incorrect, the decree 
 was made without costs. 
 
 The losing 
 defendant 
 pays the 
 costs. 
 
 Where a 
 claim is 
 "withdrawn 
 after bill 
 filed; 
 
 Section VII. — Interpleader Suits. 
 
 The rule in interpleader suits is, that the defendant 
 against whose claim the Court decides pays the costs of 
 the plaintiff and of the other defendants {Dowson v. Hard- 
 castle, 2 Cox, 278 ; and the cases cited in Beames, p. 37). 
 But in Meicx v. Bell, 1 Ha. 73, the plaintiff had his costs 
 out of the fund, but no costs were, under the circum- 
 stances, given to any of the defendants.* If an action 
 at law is directed by the decree, the result of it is con- 
 clusive, and the failing defendant pays the costs of the 
 suit though the equitable rights are not determined 
 {Luscombe v. Callaghan, 1 Mol. 204). So a defendant 
 who occasions the suit by making a claim which he with- 
 draws after bill filed pays the costs of it {Mason v. Hamil- 
 ton, 5 Sim. 19). But the plaintiff should not bring the 
 
 * The effect of this would seem to be that the successful defendant paid 
 the plaintiff's costs. 
 
INTERPLEADER SUITS. 153 
 
 suit to a hearing when all claims but one are withdrawn, 
 but should applj- to stay proceedings ( Symes v. Magnay, 
 20 Beav. 47) ; and a plaintiff, having brought the suit to 
 a hearing in such case, was allowed no costs subsequent 
 to the ^^•ithdrawal of the claim (ihid. ; and see Glynn v. 
 Locke, 3 Dr. ^ W. \\\ So a decree was made with or one 
 costs against a defendant who did not appear {Hodges v. 5068"™"* 
 Smith, 1 Cox, 357). appear. 
 
 An order for payment of costs is, in interpleading suits. Order for 
 made between co-defendants directly, without the inter- coste ^° 
 vention of the plaintiff (Coutan v. Williams, 9 Ves. 107 ; ^^^ 
 Mason v. Hamilton, 5 Sim. 19 ; Hodges v. Smith, 1 Cox, eo-defen- 
 357; Hopkins v. Pennell, Set. 967); notwithstanding '^™'^- 
 Edensor v. Roberts, 2 Cox, 281, which was said (5 Sim. 
 21) to be wrongly reported, so far as the minutes of the 
 decree were concerned. If the subject of dispute is a The plain- 
 fund, which has been brought into Court, the plaintiff is ^ Hen^on 
 entitled, at the hearing, to have his costs out of it in the the fund, if 
 
 „. ., .,. , . . 1.1 any, for his 
 
 nrst instance without prejudice to the question by which costs ; 
 defendant they should ultimately be borne {Campbell v. 
 Solomans, \ S. ^ S. 462 ; Hoggart v. Cutis, Cr. §• Ph. 197 ; 
 Secretary of State for India v. Kelson, Set. 968) ; or if 
 the fund is not in Court, the order will be for retainer 
 of his costs out of it by the plaintiff ( Coutan v. Williams, 
 loc. cit. ; Hodges v. Smith, loc. cii.). And the plaintiff is 
 entitled to costs out of the fund, though an immediate 
 order is made for their payment by one of the defendants 
 (Hodges v. Smith, loc. cit. ; Campbell v. Solomans, loc. 
 cit.X But the plaintiff is not entitled to move for his but cannot 
 costs before the hearing (Jones v. Gilham, G. Coop. 49) ; them" 
 but secus, if all claims but one are withdrawn ( Symes v. before the 
 Magnay, 20 Beav. 47). In Glynn v. Locke, 3 Dr. Set-oflf' 
 §• W. 11, part of the bill was dismissed with costs, and ^j'"^™! P^""* 
 the plaintiff had costs only up to the withdrawal of his dismissed. 
 claim by one defendant ; and the costs payable to the 
 plaintiffs were set off against the costs payable by 
 them to the successful defendant, and the latter had his 
 
154 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Where the 
 plaintiflf 
 has no 
 costs, or 
 pays costs. 
 
 Collusion 
 between 
 plaintiif 
 and one 
 defendant. 
 
 Where 
 there is no 
 case for 
 inter- 
 pleader. 
 
 costs so set off and his other costs over from the other 
 defendant. 
 
 The plaintiff, though it is a proper case for interpleader, 
 may lose his costs by misconduct {Brymer v. Buchanan, 
 1 Dick. 292, n. ; and see Beames, 38, n. 5), and will have 
 to pay the costs of unnecessary evidence, such as of an 
 affidavit verifying the bill on motion for injunction,* or of 
 obtaining an injunction where no action or proceedings 
 are threatened {Crawford v. Fisher, lJ2a. 436). 'Vexa- 
 tious conduct or culpable negligence on the part of the 
 plaintiff in an interpleading suit, whereby needless ex- 
 pense is occasioned, ought, in my opinion, to be visited 
 in all cases with costs against the plaintiff ' (per V. C. 
 Wigram, 1 Ha. 444). Where the plaintiff was colluding 
 with one of the defendants, the bill was dismissed, and the . 
 plaintiff and his solicitor were ordered to pay all the 
 innocent defendant's costs and expenses as between 
 solicitor and client {JDungey v. Angove, 2 Ves. Junr. 304). 
 If the bill raises no case for interpleader as against all or 
 some of the defendants, the course is to dismiss it with 
 costs as against such defendants (see ex. gr. Hoggart v. 
 Cutts, Cr. §• Ph. 197 ; Glynn v. Locke, ^ Dr. &( W. \l); 
 but in Cochrane v. O'Brien, 2 Jo. 8f Lat. 380, the bill 
 was dismissed without costs as to the defendants whose 
 misconduct had occasioned the suit. Although one de- 
 fendant submits to a decree against him with costs, the 
 plaintiff will not, if it was not a proper case for inter- 
 pleader, be allowed a lien on the fund for his costs ( Watts 
 V. Hammond, 3 W. R. 312). However, the rule as to 
 defendants losing their costs by not demurring {ante, 
 p. 77) applies to interpleader suits {Cook v. Earl of 
 Rosslyn, 1 Giff. 167); and semble, notwithstanding Lord 
 Eldon's dictum, in Hyde v. Warren, 19 Ves. 322, that 
 a defendant could not demur after the fund was in Court: 
 
 * In interpleader suits an injimction to restrain proceedings at law is 
 granted ex parte without an affidavit of merits on the fund being brought 
 into Court (1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 753). 
 
SUITS RELATING TO MORTGAGES. 155 
 
 a dictum whicli rests on no principle, and was disapproved 
 of in Hogg art v. Cutis, Cr. §• P/i. 201. 
 
 The plaintiiF will be entitled to costs as between party Costs as 
 and party only {Du7ilop v. Hubbard, 19 Ves. 205); and par^and 
 not to any charges and expenses dehors the suit {Hale v. P'^'^'y only 
 Saloon Omnibus Company, 4 Drew. 492), but including to charges 
 the costs at law, if any (Dowson v. Hardcastle, 2 Cox, '"^'^ 
 
 ' J \ ^ ' ' expenses 
 
 278). The lower scale of costs applies to an interplead- dehors the 
 ing suit where the matter in dispute is under the value of 
 £1,000 {Gibbs V. Gibbs, 6 W. R. 415). 
 
 In a suit by the owner of an estate, subject to a charge, Suit in the 
 against conflicting claimants to the money raisable, the j^j^j,. 
 plaintiff was allowed his costs against those defendants pleader. 
 who failed in their claim ( Vyvyan v. Vyvyan, 9 W. R. 
 879, affd. on appeal, 10 W. R. 179). A defendant in A defen- 
 the position of an interpleading plaintiff, as a debtor position of 
 whose debt is claimed by the plaintiff and by one of the ^ stake- 
 defendants, is entitled to retain his costs out of the debt 
 {Applin v. Cates, 30 L. J. ch. 6) ; and an auctioneer being 
 ordered to pay a deposit into Court in a specific perform- 
 ance suit was allowed to retain his costs and expenses 
 out of it {Annesley v. Muggeridge, 1 Mad. 593 ; Yates v. 
 Farebrother, 4 Mad. 239). 
 
 Section VIII. — Suits relating to Mortgages. 
 
 The rule of equity as between mortgagor and mort- General 
 gagee is, that the latter is entitled to add all his costs cog^"'^ 
 properly incurred to his security, and that the mortgagor between 
 
 I i J •' ° ° mortgagor 
 
 or subsequent incumbrancers can redeem only on pay- and 
 ment of principal, interest, and costs. But a mortgagor, ^°^flf^' 
 if foreclosed, does not pay costs personally, though the foreclose or 
 estate is insufficient to pay the plaintiff's debt {Hoioardy. gec^ity.' 
 Queen^s Trustees, 2 Mad. 173 ; Frazer v. Jones, 5 Ha. 
 475, 483), unless he unsuccessfully disputes the validity 
 
156 COSTS IN PAETICULAR SUITS. 
 
 of the security ( Tildesley v. Lodge, 3 Jur. n. s. 1000 ; 
 Sharpies v. Adams, 1 N. R. 460 ; and see Taner v. Ivie, 
 2 Ves. 467). And where, by settling an estate without 
 notice of a charge upon it, the owner rendered a suit to 
 enforce the charge necessary, he had to pay the costs of it 
 An (^Wise v. Wise, 2 J. ^ L. 403). An equitable mortgagee 
 
 mortgagee. ^7 deposit is entitled to his costs as against the mortgagor 
 {Aberdeen v. Cliitty, 3 F. §• C. 379); or his personal re- 
 presentative {Connell v. Hardie, 3 K §• C. 582); or in 
 equity as against his assignees in bankruptcy {The 
 Queen v. Chambers, 4 F. §■ C. 54), though the deposit 
 was made without a memorandum (ibid.). But in bank- 
 ruptcy the rule is, that an equitable mortgagee by deposit 
 without memorandum, seeking to enforce his security, 
 pays costs {Ex parte Barclay, 5 De G. M. §• G^. 417 ; 
 Anon. 2 Mad. 281; Ex parte Warry, 19 Ves. 472); 
 though not if the assignees raise a frivolous opposition 
 {Ex parte Home, 1 Mad. 622 ; Ex parte Garbet, 2 Rose, 
 97) ; or if the deposit was made under circumstances in 
 which it is not customary, according to the course of 
 business, to give a memorandum {Ex parte Moss, 3 De G. 
 §• S. 599). If there is a memorandum, the costs are 
 added to the security {Ex parte Barclay, loc. cit. ; Ex 
 parte Trew, 3 Mad. 372 ; Ex parte Brightens, 1 Swans. 
 3). And where an agreement for a lease had been 
 deposited with a memorandum, and afterwards the lease 
 was deposited without one, the costs were allowed {Ex 
 Costs of parte Anderson, 3 De G. §• S. 600). In a decree for 
 offte'kgal foreclosure, in case of an equitable mortgage, the practice 
 esta,tetoan is to direct a conveyance by the mortgagor without saying 
 mortgagee, at whose expense (5aZZ V. Harris, S &'?«. 498); and see 
 Set. 404, where it is said that ' the rule is that the mort- 
 gagor pays the costs, though not so expressed in the 
 decree.' But in Pryce v. Bury, 2 ' Drew. 41, V. C. 
 Kindersley seems to have thought that where the pro- 
 perty consists of freeholds or leaseholds the mortgagee 
 must bear the costs, because he prepares the conveyance 
 
SUITS RELATING TO MORTGAGES. 157 
 
 and tenders it to the mortgagor ; but he decided that, in 
 the case of copyholds, the mortgagor must pay the costs 
 of surrender, because there he takes the initiative. But 
 qucere the soundness of this distinction ; as between 
 vendor and purchaser of copyhokls, for instance, the latter 
 must bear the expense both of the surrender to him and 
 of his own admission {Sugd. V. &; P. 562). It would 
 seem on principle that the rule as stated in Seton {loc. 
 cit) is correct ; but see the contrary opinion maintained 
 in Fisher on Mortgages, 570. Where the defendant had 
 acquired the legal estate with notice of an equitable 
 charge, but disputed the validity of it, he was ordered to 
 pay personally so much of the costs as the security was 
 insufficient to satisfy {Sharpies v. Adams, 1 iV. R. 460). 
 
 Again, the plaintiff in a suit for redemption, according Eedemp-' 
 to the general rule, pays the costs of it {Detilin v. Gale, 
 7 Ves. 586). And it is so far a matter of principle that 
 an appeal for costs wiU lie where a mortgagee is refused 
 his costs {Owen v. Griffith, 1 Ves. 250 ; Norton v. 
 Cooper, 5 De G. M. Sf G. 728). There must be some- 
 thing of positive misconduct to deprive a mortgagee of 
 his costs {Loftus v. Swift, 2 Sch. §• L. 642) ; merely 
 extending his claim beyond what the Court decides that 
 he is entitled to is not sufficient (ibid). Where a bill was 
 filed for redemption of two estates, and one was held not 
 to be redeemable, the plaintiff was allowed to redeem the 
 other only on payment of principal and interest and the 
 whole costs of the suit {Batchelor v. Middleton, 6 Ha. 
 75). In default of redemption the bill is dismissed with 
 costs. 
 
 In a suit by a puisne incumbrancer for redemption and Suits by 
 foreclosure merely, the costs of each party are added to his {j^^,^. 
 security and paid with his principal and interest according brancera 
 to his priority ( Wright v. Kirhy, 23 Beav. 463 ; Wild v. elosuro 
 Lockhart, 10 Beav. 320 ; Barnes v. Racster, \ Y. ^ C. ^"^"'^^ 
 C. C. 401). But where the suit is instituted to ascertain 
 priorities upon an estate or fund, the plaintiff has costs in 
 
158 COHTH IN PAKTICULAR HIJITH. 
 
 the first instance, and the costs oi' other parties are added 
 
 to their Hcciirities {^Vritjli.t v. Kirhij, l.oc ci.L; H^'IrHc. v. 
 
 IJi.ihop of I'lilcrhoriimjh, Jar. 402 ; llracc v. J^ucIichu of 
 
 Marlhorowjhf Mos. 50; J<'()rd v. Lord VJicMcrfudd, 21 
 
 Bcav. 426). 
 
 WImto ■Wc have already Hccn {<mU'., p. 133) that a first niort- 
 
 consi'iiiH to gigeo docs not lose his i)n()ril,y in .respect ol costs by 
 
 a sale. conscntinir to a sale of (lie morlffuffcd |)n)|)<;rl,y in a suit 
 
 to admiriJHtcr the niortgagor'n estate. Nor will he do so 
 
 by consenting to a sale in a pi dune in(!urn()r!iric(;r'« suit 
 
 {Wdd^. Lo<d<.li.(irl., lor. rr/.L); and ho is entitled to his 
 
 principal, interest, andcostw in priority cvoii to the oohI.h of 
 
 IJk; sale (i/nd. ; and SCO drosse v. (Jcncral. lirncralonary 
 
 Conrpiiny, 3 J)i; (J. M. 8f (J. 698). So in a suit for fon;- 
 
 closurc, where the jilaintiff coriHonlcd to a salo, and the 
 
 fund proved insufficient to pay him his jtrinoipal, inton^sl;, 
 
 and costs, the whole fund was ordered to be i)aid to him 
 
 WhcTO (Uppcrton v. Ilarrixim, 7 Sim. 444). In Kenehel v, 
 
 SllliBcr|llcil(, , ' ' ^ . 1111 
 
 ineum- hcrafton, 1 li Fe.?. 370, it was liold that where, in a Hiiit. 
 
 mnmiuo ^*"' ^"J^cclosurc, the mortgaged property had been sold with 
 
 a Kilo. the concurrence of the subsequent rnorlgagocs, llio cohI.h 
 
 of all jiarties were payai)le out of Uio j)ro(;c(!ds in jiriorily 
 
 to the principal and interest of the first in(;iinibrunccr. 
 
 ]iut that case has not been approved or followed in pnw- 
 
 tico(per V. C. "Wigram, llcpworUiy, llcdop,'.\ I la. 487); 
 
 and HOC Jiarneii v. HdisUr, 1 Y. Hg C. (!. (!. 401, where 
 
 V. C. Knight IJrncc held that the mere circumstance of 
 
 there being a decree for sale insf.ead of'forecloHiirc did not 
 
 prirnd facii; change the rights of the parties ; if a decree 
 
 for sale was coiuieded on terinH in order to prevent the 
 
 operation of the general rule, the terms must appear in 
 
 the decree ifHcif. Tn I'Voidncr v. Wrujht, 2 Km. M:'>, 
 
 which is often cited on this jioint, the morlgjigee had lost 
 
 WlKTcIiill his deeds, as to wiiicli sec pout, p. Hi], In Cnl/idd \. 
 
 Em or' Jii<:ti-'JrdH, 2(> ISrav. 241, where the; [liaintiff being a mort- 
 
 i«'\':. gagee of a term only filed a bill for for(!eioHure or sale, 
 
 and by consent the fee simple was sold in the suit, he was 
 
SUITS EELATIXG TO MORTGAGES. 159 
 
 held entitled to his costs in priority to other parties. 
 However, in Macrae v. Ellertun, 6 W. R. 8.Jl, where the 
 hill prayed foreclosure or sale, the plaintiffs heing legal 
 mortgagees with a power of sale as to part and equitable 
 mortgagees by agreement as to other part of the mort- 
 gaged property, V. C. Stuart held that the real and 
 personal representatives of the mortgagor were entitled to 
 costs, as between solicitor and client, out of the proceeds 
 of sale of the property in priority to the plaintiffs' 
 principal and interest. His Honour placed much reliance 
 on the circumstance that the plaintiffs had ineffectually 
 attempted to sell without the concurrence of the mort- 
 gagors' representatives. V. C. Stuart followed his own 
 decision in Fuller v. Morgan, unreported, Set. 380 ; hut 
 it was disapproved of by V. C. Kindersley in Wade v. 
 Ward, 4 Dreii:. 602. Where a legal mortgagee with a Where 
 power of sale filed a bill for a sale, it was formerly held mortgagee 
 that the subsequent incumbrancer and mortgagor con- files a bill 
 
 . , , . , , . .° .° , for sale 
 
 currmg m the sale were entitled to costs m priority to the only, 
 plaintiff's principal and interest ( Cooke v. Brown, 4 Y. 
 §• C. 227 ; Alston v. Parker, 5 L. J. n. s. 3). But in 
 Hutton V. Sealy, 6 W. R. 350, a decree was made for sale 
 and payment of the plaintifTs principal, interest, and 
 costs out of the proceeds, on the apparent grounds that 
 the mortgagee had a right to have the trusts of the pur- 
 chase monies administered by the Court. Where the 
 mortgaged property had been sold by the first mortgagee 
 under his power of sale, and the second mortgagee filed a 
 bill for an account, the first mortgagee was expressly 
 charged as a trustee (Tanner v. Heard, 23 Beav. 555). 
 But where the equity of redemption was settled in trust Or arnilg 
 for sale to pay off the mortgage and then hold the surplus ^ trust 
 upon certain tnists, and a judgment creditor of the mort- ^™ f ''" 
 gagee filed a bill to charge the mortgagee's interest under equity of 
 the deed, it was held that the trustees were entitled to yo^™'^' 
 their costs in the first instance ( Clare v. Wood, 4 Ha. 81 ) : 
 and this seems to have been the point decided in Seffken 
 
160 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 V. Davis, Kay. app. xxi., though the report is not very 
 intelligible. 
 Eights There has been considerable difference of opinion, and 
 
 equitable i* Seems yet unsettled, whether the strict right of an 
 mortgagee -equitable mortgagee by deposit is to foreclosure or sale ; 
 fore- see the leases collected in Tuckley v. Thompson, 1 J. 
 
 closure. ^ il.-l2&, where V. C. Wood inclined to the opinion that 
 a sale was the proper remedy. But it seems that the 
 balance of authority, at least as respects the more recent 
 cases, is in, favour of foreclosure ; see Pryce v. Bury, 18 
 Jur. 967 ; Cox v. Toole, 20 Beav. 145 ; Set. 449, and the 
 cases there cited. In either case, an equitable mortgagee 
 seems to be in the same position with respect to costs as a 
 legal mortgagee ; see the cases cited ante, p. 147 ; Lewis 
 V. John, 9 Sim. 366 ; and Wade v. Ward, 4 Drew. 602, 
 where the Court directed a sale, and held that the plaintiff 
 was entitled to his principal, interest, and costs in priority 
 to the infant heir of the mortgagor. In Tuckley v. 
 Thompson, loc. cit, an equitable mortgagee filed a bill to 
 realise his security by sale and prove against the mort- 
 gagor's estate for the balance, and V. C. Wood gave him 
 his costs in priority to all other claims, because by seeking 
 only to prove for the balance against the estate he was 
 asking less than his just rights (see Mason v. Bogg, 2 
 My. 8f C 443) ; but the Vice Chancellor, following his 
 own decision in Berry v. Hebhlethwaite (4 K. §• J. 80), 
 thought the costs of the actual sale should come out of 
 the proceeds of the mortgaged estate. 
 
 As to the costs of a mortgagee instituting or adopting 
 an administration suit, see ante, p. 132. 
 Exceptions The Court will not, on light grounds, deprive a mort- 
 that"" g^gse of his costs or make him pay costs {Loftus v. 
 mortgagee Smith, 2 Sch. §• L. 642; Detilin\. Gale, 7 Ves. 586); 
 coSs°° ^^^ tas even doubted its power to give costs against a 
 mortgagee {Franklyn v. Fern, Barn. ch. 30). But the 
 i. Where jurisdiction is now established. A mortgagee resisting 
 he resists ^Y\q right to redeem, and relying on the transaction as an 
 
SUITS RELATING TO MORTGAGES. 161 
 
 absolute purchase, was allowed no costs in Sevier v. Uio right 
 Greemoay, 19 Ves. 413 ; Lawley v. Hooper, 3 Atk. 278 ; *^° '"'^'""^■ 
 and had to pay the whole costs in Baker v. Wind, 1 Ves. 
 Sen. 160; England v. Codrin'gton, 1 Eden, 169. In 
 Harvey V. Tebbutt, 1 Jae. §• ^. 197, where the mort- 
 gagee relied on a foreclosure decree which had tte'en 
 coUusively obtained, he had to pay only so much of the 
 costs as were thereby occasioned, which were set off 
 against the money payable by the plaintiff; and so in 
 Perkins v. Bradley, 1 Ha. 219; Wheatoh v. Graham, 24 
 Beav. 483, where the right to redeem was disputed. In 
 Cowdry v. Day, 5 Jur. n. s. 1199, the defendant resisted 
 the right to redeem ; but as the bill contained injurious 
 charges struck out by amendment, the usual decree was 
 made. In Wicks v. Scriven, \ J. ^ H. 215, where the 
 equity of redemption was in settlement, and the mort- 
 gagees had refused to be redeemed by the tenant for life, 
 they had no costs up to the hearing, but did not pay costs, 
 as the tenant for life had the advantage of having the 
 account taken in the presence of the trustees of the settle- 
 ment. Where the question whether the estate was re- 
 deemable or not involved a difficult point of real property 
 law, the decree was made without costs {Kirkham v. 
 Smith, 1 Ves. 258). 
 
 As between two mortgagees when the question in dis- Wliere 
 pute is as to their respective priorities, the one in whose question of 
 favour the Court decides is entitled to his costs from the priorities 
 other one, the latter not having. them over from the twomort- 
 mortgagor {Mocatta v. Murgatroyd, \ P. W. 391 ; and S'^S"^- 
 see Banks v. Whittal, I Be G. Sf S. 536; Hiorns v. 
 Holtom, 16 Jur. 1077); but where the question had 
 arisen from the acts and conduct of the mortgagor him- 
 self, the plaintiff failing was allowed the costs over 
 {Felly V. Wathen, 7 Ha. 372). 
 
 A mortgagee who had lost some of the title deeds had ii. wiiore a 
 to pay the costs of a foreclosure suit in Stokoe v. Rohson, ^°l^^^]l^ 
 19 Ves. 385 ; Shelmardine v. Harrop, 6 Mad. 39 ; so of deeds. 
 
 M 
 
162 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 a redemption suit (Lord Midleton v. Eliot, 15 Sim. 531). 
 ' In the ca9e last cited the mortgagee had refused to give 
 any indemnity for the loss of the deeds. Where a mort- 
 gagee, who had lost his deeds, came to the Court for a 
 sale, the subsequent incumbrancers were allowed their 
 costs out of the proceeds, though insufficient to pay the 
 plaintiiF's debt {Wontner v. Wright, 2 Sim. 543). In 
 Hornby v. Matcham, 16 Sim. 325, where the mortgagee 
 had destroyed the deeds in a fit of insanity, a decree for 
 redemption was made on payment of principal and 
 interest only, the amount of compensation for the loss of 
 the deeds to be set off against what was found due on the 
 mortgage; sioA B&e Brown -v. Sewell, 11 Ha, 49. How- 
 ever, V. C. Knight Bruce said (in Woodman v. Higgins, 
 14 Jur. 846) that a mortgagee who tools the same care of 
 the deeds forming his security as of his own, ought not to 
 be hardly dealt with ; and the deeds having been found, 
 he made a decree for redemption on payment of principal 
 and costs, the defendant waiving his claim for compen- 
 sation, and electing to have interest stopped from the date 
 of his tender, 
 iii. Where On the simple fact that something was due to the 
 mortgagee HQortgagee when the mortgagor came to redeem, the 
 is over- mortgagee is entitled to the costs of the suit, though he 
 is in possession and the account is directed with annual 
 rests (^Barlow v. Gains, 23 Beav. 244) ; but if the mort- 
 gagor alleges, and proves, that nothing was due when the 
 bill, either in a redemption or foreclosure suit, was filed, 
 the mortgagee must pay the costs {ibid. ; and see Bin- 
 nington v. Haricood, T. 8f R. 477 ; Wilson v. Cluer, 4 
 Beav. 214; Archdeacon v. Bowes, M' del. 149, 167). 
 'Where over-payment is alleged, the usual course is 
 to reserve the costs until the result of the accounts is 
 certified '( <S'e?. 377.) After a decree for redemption on 
 payment of principal, interest, and costs without any re- 
 servation, it was held that the Court could not deprive 
 the mortgagee of his costs, although it turned out that he 
 
 paid, 
 
SUITS DELATING TO MORTGAGES. 163 
 
 was overpaid (iorc? Trimleston v. Hamill, I B. 8f B. 377 ; 
 aud see Gilbert v. Golding, 2 Anstr. 442). Where the 
 defendant by answer claimed a balance due to him, and 
 by the accounts it appeared that a sum was due to him 
 when the bUl was filed, but he was overpaid when the 
 answer was put in, he was allowed the costs up to putting 
 in his answer but no subsequent costs {Montgomerie v. 
 Calland, 14 Sim. 81); but in Snagg v. Frizell, 3 J. Sf L. 
 385, his conduct having been vexatious, he had to pay the 
 costs subsequent to answer. If a mortgagee in possession 
 refuses to account, he must pay the costs of the suit up to 
 the hearing {Poioell v. Trotter, 1 Dr. §• S. 388). 
 
 The general principles with regard to the effect of iv. "Where 
 tender on the costs of the suit have been stated, ante, \^^l^^^' 
 pp. 71, 72. In addition to the cases there cited, see as to and costs 
 tender between mortgagor and mortgagee, Shiittleivorth tendered. 
 
 v. Lou-ther, 7 Ves. 586 ; v. Trecothick, 2 V. Sf B. 
 
 181 ; JVilliams v. Sorrel, 4, Ves. 389; Roberts v. Williams, 
 4 Ha. 129; Morley v. Bridges, 2 Coll. 621. In Harmer 
 V. Priestley, 16 Beav. 569, where an unconditional tender 
 of a certain sum had been made before suit, a decree 
 was made for an account at the date of the tender, and 
 directions were given that if the amount found due 
 should not exceed the amount tendered, the mortgagee 
 should pay the costs ; but if otherwise, the usual decree 
 should be made. But in Thomas v. Cooper, 18 Jur. 688, 
 where the plaintiff claimed more and the defendant offered 
 less than was ultimately found due, V. C. Stuart gave no 
 costs. There were other points in that case, which, 
 perhaps, might take it out of the general rule, which is 
 very precise, that in the absence of a tender of the whole 
 amount due to him the mortgagee is entitled to his costs 
 of suit, although he demands more than is due {Loftus 
 V. Swift, 2 Sch. §• L. 642). ' There are several cases of 
 foreclosure in which, though very reasonable proposals 
 may be made, yet, if there Is no proof of an actual tender, 
 the Court, on a bill to foreclose, never refuses costs ' (per 
 
 m 2 
 
164 
 
 COSTS IN PAETICULAE SUITS. 
 
 What is 
 
 sufficient 
 
 tender. 
 
 V. Vexa- 
 tious, 
 
 fraudulent, 
 or oppres- 
 sive 
 conduct. 
 
 Lord Hardwicke, Gammon v. Stone, 1 Ves. 339). If the 
 tender is not such as would, according to the rule of the 
 Court, stop interest, it will not deprive the mortgagee of 
 his costs ( G^ar/or^/t V. Bradley, 2 Ves. 678). A notice 
 by second mortgagee of his intention to redeem wiU not 
 save the costs of a foreclosure suit by the first mortgagee 
 up to the time when an actual tender is made ( Smith v. 
 Green, 1 Coll. 555). In Hodges v. Croydon Canal Com- 
 pany, 3 Beav. 60, where the question in the suit was 
 as to the number of years for which arrears of interest 
 could be claimed, the mortgagor, though he succeeded in 
 reducing the amount to six years, had to pay the whole 
 costs because no actual tender had been made. But 
 a mortgagee may reasonably refuse a tender, if, at the 
 same time, a deed of reconveyance containing covenants 
 is presented to him for his immediate execution, and 
 such refusal will not stop interest or deprive him of 
 costs (^Wiltshire v. Smith, 3 Ath. 89). A tender, even 
 after the account has been taken under the decree, will 
 save the subsequent costs {^Sentance v. Porter, 1 Ha. 
 426) ; and the tender may be proved on motion, or by 
 petition at the hearing on further consideration (ibid.). 
 In Cliff V. Wadsworth, 2 Y. ^ C. C. C. 598, where a 
 mortgage was vested in three trustees, an innocent trustee 
 got his costs ; a second who had omitted to attend per- 
 sonally at the time and place appointed for settlement got 
 no costs; a third, who by an untenable claim to the 
 interest beneficially had prevented the settlement, had to 
 pay the plaintiff's and the innocent trustee's costs. As to 
 dismissal of a foreclosure bill by the defendant on pay- 
 ment of principal, interest, and costs before the hearing, 
 see ante, pp. 58, 59. 
 
 A mortgagee may also lose his costs of a redemption 
 suit, or a part of them, by vexatious conduct ; see Detilin 
 V. Gale, 7 Ves. 586, where the defendant was a solicitor 
 and agent who took a mortgage for sums due to him with- 
 out any settlement of accounts, and having put every 
 
SUITS RELATING TO MORTGAGES. 165 
 
 impediment in the way of the account being taken in the 
 Master's office, had to pay the costs of those proceedings 
 and got costs down to the answer only. And so where 
 the bill seeks to be relieved against the mortgagee's 
 fraudulent or oppressive conduct, on payment of the 
 amount fairly owing ; see Morony v. O'Dea, 1 B. Sf B. 
 109, where the defendant had no costs ; Thornhill v. 
 Evans, 2 Atk. 330 ; Cochell v. Taylor, 15 Beav. 127, 
 where the mortgagee paid costs up to the hearing. In 
 the case last cited it was held that an innocent equitable 
 sub-mortgagee had no equity against the plaintiff, and a 
 defendant ia that position had to pay the costs of insist- 
 ing on his security. In Rider v. Jones, 2 Y. Sf C. C. C. 
 328, the mortgagee was insolvent, and as he would have 
 paid costs if solvent, neither he nor his assignee got any 
 costs. And see the other cases collected in 1 Hov. Supp. 
 355, and the notes to Harvey v. Tebhutt, 1 J". ^ ^T. 197 ; 
 and as to suits to set aside securities on reversionary in- 
 terests, see post, sec. xi. Where, however, the mortgagor 
 unsuccessfully impeaches a security, it is almost of course 
 that he should pay costs {Taner v. Ivie, 2 Ves. 467). 
 
 The mortgagee must not introduce extraneous or im- The mort- 
 proper matters into a foreclosure suit. Therefore, where ^of^pXaie 
 the plaintiff, by amendment, changed his bill from one for mortgagor 
 an account against a bailiff into a foreclosure bill after an necessary 
 issue finding that he was a mortgagee, he was allowed expenses 
 costs only as if the bill had originally been one for fore- 
 closure {Smith v. Smith, G. Coop. 141). The devisee of 
 a mortgagee, plaintiff in a foreclosure suit, will not be 
 allowed the costs of the heir at law made a party to 
 establish the will against him (^Skipp v. Wyatt, 1 Cox, 
 353). So where fhe plaintiff attempted to tack a bond 
 to his mortgage debt, his bill was dismissed with costs to 
 this extent {Hamerton v. Rogers, 1 Ves. Junr. 513); and 
 in a suit to establish a mortgage, the plaintiff had his 
 costs generally, but had to pay the costs of unproven 
 charges of fraud against his co-trustee who was made a 
 
166 
 
 COSTS IN PAETICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Costs of 
 mort- 
 gagee's 
 trustee. 
 
 Wtere 
 mortgagee 
 
 before 
 Btiit. 
 
 defendant (West v. Jones, 1 Sim. n. s. 218); and the 
 plaintiff must pay the costs of defendants not necessary- 
 parties ( Coles V. Forrest, 10 Beav. 552). But the mort- 
 gagor's trustee to bar dower is a proper party to a fore- 
 closure suit, and will not be allowed any costs from the 
 plaintiff {Horrocks v. Ledsam, 2 Coll. 208). The plain- 
 tiff was held entitled to add to his own costs the costs of 
 a trustee of a term for better securing the plaintiff, made 
 defendant to the bill {Browne v. Lockhart, 10 Sim. 420; 
 and see Bartle v. Wilkin, 8 Sim. 238). And where one of 
 two mortgagees filed a bill for foreclosure and made the 
 other one a defendant, the decree directed foreclosure on 
 default in payment of the whole debt and the costs of both 
 mortgagees {Davenport v. James, 7 Ua. 249). But should 
 not the trustee and co-mortgagee in these cases have been 
 co-plaintiffs, and ought the mortgagor to bear the extra 
 expense occasioned by their being defendants ? The 
 practical effect of the decisions seems to be, to throw on 
 the mortgagor the onus of proving the willingness of the 
 defendant to have joined as plaintiff if he had been asked 
 (see ante, p. 89). As to the costs of persons made de- 
 fendants to a foreclosure bill and disclaiming, see ante, 
 pp. 81, seq. 
 
 The mortgagor, in a redemption suit, must pay the costs 
 of all persons claiming an interest in the equity of re- 
 demption under the mortgagee {Wetherell v. Collins, 5 
 Mad. 255); 'upon this principle,— that at law, after a 
 mortgage is forfeited, the estate is the absolute property 
 of the mortgagee, and he may deal with it as his own ; 
 and that if the mortgagor comes for the redemption which 
 the equity of this Court gives him, it must be upon the 
 terms of indemnifying the mortgagee from all costs 
 arising out of his legal acts' {ibid.). This reasoning 
 applies as well to a foreclosure suit {Bartle v. Wilkin, 8 
 Sim. 238); and, therefore, where the mortgagee had put 
 the mortgage into settlement, and the cestui-que trust 
 filed a bill and made the trustee a defendant, the plaintiff 
 
SUITS RELATING TO MOETGAGES. 167 
 
 was held entitled to add the trustee's costs to his own 
 {ibid.). Any number of sub-mortgagees will be entitled 
 in a foreclosure suit by the original mortgagee to their 
 costs from him, and he wiU have them over with his own 
 {Smith V. Chichester, 2 JDr. ^y TV. 393). So if the mort- 
 gage becomes di-sdded in various shares ( Cane v. Brown- 
 rigg, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 413). And it has even been held that 
 the mortgagor must pay all the costs of a redemption 
 suit, where the right to receive the mortgage money was 
 in dispute between two defendants {Dreio v. Harman, 5 
 Pr. 319). 
 
 On the same principle, an apphcation to have out of Costa 
 Court deeds relating to mortgages become absolute at law, respecting 
 properly deposited in the course of an administration suit, tt'' '"o'^t- 
 was at the costs of the mortgagor {Burden v. Oldaher, 1 
 Coll. lOo). But where the mortgage has been assigned 
 with other property by one deed, the mortgagor redeem- 
 ing is entitled to the deed on entering into a covenant for 
 the production of it at the costs of the mortgagee ( Capper 
 V. Terrington, 1 Coll. 103); or if the mortgagees are 
 allowed to retain it, they must give an attested copy and 
 covenant for its production at their own expense {Dobson 
 V. Lund, iBeG.Sf S. 575). 
 
 But if the mortgagee assigns after decree, or, it seems, Assign- 
 at any time pending the suit {Coles v. Forrest, 10 Beav. pendente 
 552), and his assignees are brought before the Court by lite; 
 
 or 3.ftGr 
 
 order of revivor or supplemental bill, they must bear the decree. 
 extra costs thereby occasioned {Barry v. Wrey, 3 Russ. 
 465; James v. Harding, 24 L. J. ch. 749; Coles v. 
 Forrest, loc. cit.). And where, a decree for redemption 
 and foreclosure having been obtained in a former suit by 
 a second mortgagee, one of the subsequent incumbrancers 
 sub-mortgaged, and the sub-mortgagee filed a bill to 
 redeem aU prior to himself, the biU was dismissed with 
 costs as against all the defendants, except the plaintiff's 
 transferor, against whom a decree for foreclosure was 
 made in default of his paying principal and interest and 
 
168 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Costs on 
 transfer 
 of mort- 
 
 Wlat 
 
 expenses 
 
 are 
 
 allowed to 
 
 mortgagee 
 
 in settling 
 
 accounts. 
 
 the plaintiff's costs, including what he should pay to the 
 other defendants {Booth v. Creswicke, 8 Sim. 352). 
 However, in Selby v. Selby, 2 Jur. 106, where a tenant 
 for life paid off charges on the inheritance and then filed 
 a bill to have them raised, he was held entitled to his 
 costs of assigning the charges after decree, on the grounds 
 that the suit was in the nature of a family suit. The 
 first mortgagee, plaintiff in a foreclosure suit, is entitled to 
 the costs of taking a transfer pending the suit of a second 
 mortgage ( CoZes v. Forrest, loc. cit.). 
 
 But where the interest on a iflortgage is regularly paid, 
 and the mortgagor is never called on to pay the principal, 
 the costs of a transfer of the mortgage will not be allowed 
 against the mortgagor, if made without his concurrence 
 {Re Radcliffe, 22 Beav. 201) ; or a fortiori against mesne 
 incumbrancers. A mortgagee is not bound to transfer his 
 mortgage to a nominee of the mortgagor after payment, 
 if he have notice of an equitable claim on the estate by 
 another person ; and having agreed to transfer on the re- 
 presentation that he was bound to do so, and having after- 
 wards refused, he was allowed against the mortgagor and 
 his nominee the costs of a suit to compel such transfer 
 {Banks V. Whittall, 1 De G. §• -S'. 541). 
 
 ' The Court, in settling accounts between mortgagor 
 and mortgagee will give the latter all that his contract, 
 or the legal and equitable consequences of it, entitle him 
 to receive, and all the costs properly incurred in ascertain- 
 ing or defending such rights, whether at law or in equity ' 
 (per Lord Cottenham, C, Dryden v. Frost, 3 My. 8f C. 
 670, 675) ; or in recovering the mortgage money {Ellison 
 V. Wright, 3 Russ. 458 ; but see Merriman v. Bonney, 
 12 W. R. 461). In Hunt v, Fownes, 9 Ves. 70, the 
 mortgagee was allowed the costs of taking out adminis- 
 tration, in the course of the suit, to an annuitant under 
 the mortgagor's wUl, the annuity being in arrear at her 
 death. And the costs of taking out administration to 
 the mortgagor will be allowed {Ramsden v. Langley, 2 
 
SUITS RELATING TO MORTGAGES. 169 
 
 Vei-n. 536) ; but not if before suit and the bill does not 
 state such costs to have been incurred ( IFard v. Barton, 
 11 JSini. 534 ; Millard v. Magor, 3 Mad. 433). On a bill Costs of 
 by the mortgagor's heir to redeem, the mortgagee was ^^1131 
 allowed the full expenses of an action brought by the 
 heir alleging an entail {^Ramsden v. Langley, he. cit) But 
 the mortgagee will be entitled to the costs of defending 
 his title to the mortgage only as against such of the 
 persons entitled to the equity of redemption as concurred 
 in the litigation (Parser v. Watkins, Johns. 133). In the 
 case cited, the equity of redemption being in settlement, 
 a decree was made for redemption by the tenant for life 
 on payment of principal, interest, and costs, including the 
 costs of an action by him, but as against the remaindermen 
 the usual costs only were allowed. But the mortgagee is 
 entitled to add to his security the costs of defending the 
 title to the estate against strangers, that being in the 
 interest of all parties ( Godfrey v. Watson, 3 Atk. 517; 
 Parker v. IVatkins, lac. cit). The costs of an action of or by 
 ejectment by the mortgagee to recover the mortgaged 
 premises, the interest being in arrear, will be allowed 
 {Sandon v. Hooper, 6 Beav. 646 ; and see Horlock v. 
 Smith, 1 Coll. 298, where the principle was recognised, 
 though the Court, being bound by a former decree, re- 
 fused to allow the costs). In Ellison v. Wright, he. eit., 
 the mortgagee was held entitled to the costs of an action 
 against a surety who had joined the mortgagor in a bond, 
 the surety having proved insolvent ; but in Lewis v. John, 
 9 Sim. 366, the mortgagee was not allowed, as against 
 the devisees of the mortgagor, the costs of proceeding on 
 the mortgage bond against the personal estate. And in 
 Merriman v. Bonney, 12 W. R. 461, it was doubted 
 whether the costs of an action against the mortgagor 
 on his covenant for payment of interest should be 
 allowed. Where the mortgagee contracted to sell under 
 his power of sale, and by the advice of counsel filed a bill 
 for specific performance which was dismissed with costs, 
 
170 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 Costs of 
 preparing 
 the mort- 
 gage deed. 
 
 Other 
 costs. 
 
 Inquiry 
 as to 
 mort- 
 gagee's 
 costs, &e. 
 not of 
 
 Costs of 
 
 recon- 
 
 Tejance 
 
 rally ;- 
 
 he was not allowed to add his costs of that suit to 
 his security (Peers v. Ceeley, 15 Beav. 209.) And an 
 equitable mortgagee was not allowed the costs of an 
 unsuccessful defence to an action at law to recover the 
 mortgaged premises (Dry den v. Frost, loc. cit). The 
 Court, on making a foreclosure decree, refused to give 
 the costs of a cross suit to redeem which was then pending 
 (Anon., Mos. 45). Where the mortgagee was a soHcitor, 
 it was held that the bill of costs of his firm for preparing 
 the mortgage deed were not covered by the security 
 (Gregg v. Slater, 22 Beav. 314); and see Morley v. 
 Bridges, 2 Coll. 621, where the mortgagee had taken 
 £35 out of Court in an action for the costs of preparing 
 the mortgage deed, and having refused to receive his 
 mortgage money without the full amount claimed for such 
 costs, had to pay the costs of a redemption suit. And 
 where, after accounts had been taken under a fore- 
 closure decree, the plaintifis incurred costs in another 
 suit by prior incumbrancers respecting other property 
 mortgaged to them, it was held that they could not on 
 petition add such costs to their costs of suit (Barron 
 V. Lancefield, 17 Beav. 208). As to what allowances 
 win be made to mortgagees in possession on taking the 
 accounts between them and the mortgagor, see Fisher 
 on Mortgages, pp. 493, seq, ; 2 Wh. §■ T. L. C. (second 
 edition) 893-4. 
 
 In a proper case an inquiry will be directed as to 
 costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred in rela- 
 tion to the mortgage security, but such inquiry is not 
 of course, and the case for it must be stated on the bill 
 (Merriman v. Bonney, 12 W. R. 461; and see Ward v. 
 Barton, 1 1 Sim. 534 ; and Millard v. Magor, 3 Mad. 
 433). 
 
 The costs of reconveyance must be borne by the 
 mortgagor, even in a case where the mortgagee has to 
 pay the costs of the suit generally (Lord Midleton v. Eliot, 
 
SUITS RELATING TO MORTGAGES. 171 
 
 15 Sim. 531; mison v. Cluer, 4 Beav. 214). So the frominfant 
 mortgagor pays the costs of the proceedings necessary to ^'^'■"^ 
 obtain a reconveyance from the infant heir of the mort- 
 gagee {Ex parte Ommanei/, 10 Sim. 298); or from his 
 dcTisees in trust, where a petition is necessary {King v. 
 Smith, 6 Ha. 473). In like manner in Re Marroio, Cr. from 
 &,• Ph. 142, it was held that the costs of obtaining a re- mort- 
 conveyance from a lunatic mortgagee, not found so by &'^'^^' 
 inquisition, must be borne by tlie mortgagor. But in an 
 earlier case of Ex parte Richards, 1 J. Sf W. 264, the 
 costs of the committee necessarily incurred to enable him 
 to convey, including the costs of the reference, were given 
 out of the lunatic's estate ; and that decision having been 
 acted on, has been followed in preference to Re Marroio, 
 though not considered satisfactory {Re Townsend, 2 Eh. 
 348 ; Re Thomas, 22 L. J. ch. 858, I PF. R. 155; Re 
 Biddle, 23 L. J. ch. 23; Re Roioley, 1 N. R. 251); but 
 semble will not be followed where the mortgagor applies, 
 unless the committee has declined to act {In re Wheeler, 
 1 De G. M. §• G. 434), nor where the mortgagee appears 
 on the face of the mortgage deed to be a trustee only 
 {Re Lewes, 1 Mac. §• G. 23 ; Re Townsend, 1 Mac. §• 
 G. 686). In that case the mortgagor pays the costs 
 {ibid.) ; but if the mortgagee is a trustee, but does not 
 appear to be so in the deed, the cestui-que trust pays the from 
 costs {Shelf. Lun. 508, 9, and cases there cited). But ^^^^^ 
 the costs of obtaining a reconveyance from the lunatic mortgagee. 
 heir of a mortgagee must be borne by the mortgagor {Re 
 Jones, 9 W. R. 175, 7 Jur. n. s. 115, 30 L. J. ch. 112; 
 Re Stewart, 4 De G. §■ J. 317). The distinction seems 
 to be that the costs of proceedings in lunacy come out of 
 the estate, but the mortgagor pays where it is necessary 
 to proceed under the Trustee Acts {Re Biddle, loc. cit.). 
 In In re Viall, Hawkins v. Perry, 8 De G. M. §• G. 439, 
 the petition was presented by a purchaser of the property 
 and the plaintiffs in an administration suit, and a portion 
 
172 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 only of the costs was ordered to be paid out of the mort- 
 gage money, the remainder to be costs in the cause. It 
 makes no difference that the lunatic is not found so by 
 inquisition (ibid.). 
 
 Section IX, — Suits for Partition and to Settle 
 Boundaries. 
 
 No costs In Parker v. Gerard, Amb. 236, Lord Thurlow held 
 
 smt'^plo" *^^t tli6 costs should be equally divided between the 
 the hear- parties in a suit for partition, though the shares were 
 costs of never so uneven ; and this rule was recognised by 
 the com- Lord Alvanley ia Hyde v. Hindly, 2 Cox, 408, at least 
 and subse- where the plaintiff had the smaller share, but his Lord- 
 tob^'*^"^'^ ship doubted, where the plaintiff's share was the larger 
 borne one. It is now, however, settled that in analogy to the 
 
 according ^^^^ °^ ^^^ °^ ^^^* °^ partition, where no costs were 
 to the given, no costs are given to either party in a suit for 
 partition up to the issuing of the commission, and that 
 the costs of issuing, executing, and confirming the com- 
 mission must be borne by the parties in proportion to the 
 value of their interests {Agar v. Fairfax, 17 Ves. 533 ; 
 Cahnadyy. Calmady, 2 Ves. Junr. 568 ; Barings. Nash, 
 1 V. 8j- B. 554 ; Jones v. Robinson, 3 De G. M. §• G. 
 910, 913) ; and see the form of the order, 17 Ves. 555, 
 Seton, 581, seq. In Agar v. Fairfax, loc. cit., no costs 
 appear to have been given of any proceedings subsequent 
 to the confirmation of the commission ; but it seems that 
 the costs of the hearing on further consideration wiU be 
 included in the costs to be borne by the parties in propor- 
 tion to their shares (Elton v. Elton, (1) 27 Beav. 632). 
 In Griffi.es v. Griffies, WW. R., 943, it is said that the 
 costs up to the decree were given out of the estate 
 generally, but from that time each party must bear his 
 proportion ; but quare the correctness of the report, for 
 giving them out of the estate would of course be the 
 same thing as letting each party bear his proportion. 
 
SUITS FOE PARTITION, ETC. 173 
 
 "VVliere a decree for partition is made without a reference 
 or commission, no costs are given on either side ( Collinson 
 V. Collinson, Seton, 572). 
 
 Where the defendant set up an agreement as a bar to Excop- 
 partition and failed, he was ordered to pay such portion th "rule. 
 of the costs as were thereby occasioned {Norris v. 
 Timmins, 1 Beav. 411). And where the bill prayed for 
 partition and account of the rents and profits against the 
 defendant, who was in possession, and the defendant dis- 
 puted the plaintiff's title, he had to pay the costs thereby 
 occasioned, and of taking the accounts {Hill v. Fullbrook, 
 Jac. 574). But where the defendant questioned the 
 plaintiff's title as heir at law to one tenant in common, 
 and an enquiry was directed which found for the plaintiff, 
 the defendant paid no costs of the enquiry except so far 
 as they might have been increased by any act of hers, 
 and it was held that mere cross-examination of the plain- 
 tiff's witnesses would not be within the exception {Lyne 
 v. Lyne, 21 Beav. 318). 
 
 In Calmady v. Calmady, loc. cit., the costs of the The costs 
 trustees of a settlement of the plaintiff's share were under dis- 
 ordered to be raised by sale or mortgage according to ^J'^^'p^j 
 the trusts of the settlement ; but Lord Eldon said the iipon their 
 decrees were short in not providing that the costs of ^jj^ifmay 
 infants and married women should be borne by the be sold for 
 share in respect of which they were incurred (17 Ves. pose of 
 557). However, in Singleton v. Hopkins, 4 fV. R. 107, ^^^j™^*^" 
 25 L. J. ch. 50, 1 Jur. n. s. 1199, V. C. Stuart directed 
 that the costs of the tliird tenant in tail who was made 
 a defendant, the first two being respectively a lunatic 
 and an infant, should be a charge on the undivided 
 share in which he was interested. On the authority 
 of that case, V. C. Wood made the costs of infant de- 
 fendants a charge upon their shares (Cox v. Cox, 3 K. 
 k J. 554 ; and see Robinson v. Aston, 9 Jur. 224 ; 
 St. Leger v. Ferguson, 10 Ir. Ch. R. 488). And in 
 Thackeray v. Parker, 1 N. R. 567, the same Judge 
 
174 COSTS IN PAETICULAE SUITS. 
 
 declared the infants' costs, both before and after the 
 issuing of the commission, to be a charge upon their 
 shares, and then, it appearing to be for the benefit of 
 the infants that a sale should take place for the purpose 
 of raising the costs, and the parties sui juris desiring a 
 sale, he directed the entirety to be sold before partition. 
 This decision was followed in Davis v. Turvey, 2 N. R. 
 151, and Capewell y. Lawrence, 8 L. T. n. s. 603, where 
 an enquiry was directed whether a sale would be for the 
 infant's benefit; and see Shepherd v. Churchill (unre- 
 ported on this point), Seton, 578. By this circuitous means 
 a jurisdiction, which it may be expected will prove very 
 useful, has been established to sell the estate and divide 
 the purchase money without the expense of partition. 
 
 Parties to Where an undivided share is in settlement, the first 
 
 suit" ^ °° tenant in tail, in ordinary cases, sufficiently represents 
 
 Tenant in the inheritance ; but where the first tenant in tail was a 
 lunatic, and the second an infant, V. C. Stuart declared 
 the third not to be an improper party, and gave him his 
 costs out of the share in which he was interested 
 {Singleton v. Hopkins, 4 W. R. 107, 25 L. J. ch. 50, 1 
 
 Purchaser. Jar. w. 5. 1199). A purchaser of the plaintiff 's Undivided 
 share made a defendant by amendment is entitled to his 
 costs from the plaintiff ( ?Fz7Z2a??is V. Williams, 10 W. R. 
 
 Lessee. 609). Where one tenant in common has made a lease of 
 his undivided share, the lessee is a necessary party to a 
 suit for partition, and his costs must be borne by the lessor 
 ( Cornish v. Guest, 2 Cox, 27 ; but see Herbert v. Hedges, 
 
 Legatees. 8 Ir. £!q. R. 479). Legatees whose legacies were charged 
 on one undivided share had to bear their own costs 
 ( Green v. Mercer, 4 Ir. Eq. R. 705). In the same case 
 it was held that a tenant for life of an undivided share 
 had no equity to call on the tenant in tail to contribute to 
 his costs : sed qu. 
 
 Suits for In Norris v. Leneve, 3 Ath. 83,* the costs of a com- 
 
 « This seems to be the case referred to in Parker v. Gerard, Amb. 236, 
 as Nevis v. Levine. 
 
SUITS TO SET ASIDE SALES, ETC. • 175 
 
 mission to ascertain boundaries, and separate freeholds settling 
 from copyliolds, were ordered to be borne by the plaintiff daS^'s. 
 and defendant equally, though their interests were un- 
 equal. But in Habergham v. Stansfeld, Set. 591, 592, 
 the costs, up to the hearing, were ordered to be paid out of 
 the testator's estate, rateably according to the values of 
 the freeholds and copyholds. "VYliere, however, a bill was 
 filed to settle the boundaries of plaintiff's and defendant's 
 manors, and the question was agreed to be tried by a 
 feigned issue, the plaintiff, having failed in three succes- 
 sive trials, was ordered to pay all the costs, both at law 
 in equity {Metcalfe v. Beckwith, 2 P. W. 2>11). 
 
 The coroniissioners have no lien on the commission for Costs of 
 their charges and expenses {Young v. Sutton, 2 V. Sf B. 
 365). 
 
 commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 Section X. — Suits for Dissolution of Partnership. 
 
 In a suit for dissolution of a partnership, the ordinary No costs 
 rule is that the Court gives no costs to either side up to hearing ^ 
 the hearing, though the suit is occasioned by the miscon- 
 duct or default of one party {Hawkins v. Parson, 10 
 TV. R. 377, 8 Jur. n. s. 852); and the rule will not be except in 
 varied except in gross cases, such as the misapplication of ^ggg_ 
 partnership assets, which the Court deals with on a differ- 
 ent footing {ibid.). Where, however, a decree for disso- Where 
 lution is made on the ground of the defendant's insanity, 550^°^^-*'°° 
 the costs come out of the partnership assets {Jones v. sionedby 
 IVelch, lK.8fJ. 765). ^°^^'^"^- 
 
 Section XI. — Suits to set aside Sales, Sfc. of Reversions. 
 
 The old rule of the Court in suits to set aside convey- Former 
 ances of reversions was, that where inadequacy of value that 
 
176 
 
 COSTS IN PAETICULAE SUITS. 
 
 costs were 
 given on 
 the prin- 
 ciple of 
 redemp- 
 tion. 
 
 Modern 
 doctrine, 
 according 
 to which, 
 the defen- 
 dant either 
 gets no 
 costs, or 
 pays them. 
 
 was the sole ground for the interference of the Courtj and 
 the decree was that the conveyance should stand as se- 
 curity for the price, or money actually advanced, the 
 suit was to be considered in the nature of a bill for re- 
 demption, and the plaintiff must pay the costs of it 
 {Baufree v. Watson, 3 My. §• K. 339, 341 ; Gwynne v. 
 Heaton, \ B. C.C.I; Twisleton v. Griffith, IP. }F. 310 ; 
 Peacock V. Evans, 16 Ves. 512; Gowland v. De Faria, 
 17 Ves. 20, 26); and so in a suit to set aside post obit 
 bonds {Mar sack v. Reeves, 6 Mad. Ill ; Bowes v. Heaps, 
 3 V. 8f B. 117); but in Chesterfield v. Janssen, 2 Ves. 
 125, the decree was made without costs. .But when fraud 
 or oppression formed part of the equity, the case was 
 altered ; see Lord Portman v. Taylor, 4 Sim. 182 ; 
 Newton Y. Hunt, 5 Sim. 511; Wood v. Abrey, 3 Mad. 
 417, where no costs were given up to the hearing; and 
 Barnardiston v. Lingood, 2 Atk. 133 ; Crowe v. Ballard, 
 1 Ves. Junr. 215; Baugh v. Price, 1 Wils. 320; Bau- 
 tree v. Watson, 3 My. §■ /iT. 339 ; Wharton v. May, 5 Ves. 
 27, where the defendant had to pay costs. So, if the 
 transaction was one which — if the property had been in 
 possession — would have come within that degree of in- 
 adequacy of consideration which has been considered as 
 evidence of fraud (ZJauzes v. Cooper, 5 My. 8f C. 270, 
 277). In Boothby v. Boothby, 15 Beav. 212, the Court 
 being bound by the decree made at the hearing, which 
 dismissed so much of the bill as charged fraud with costs, 
 refused, on further consideration, to treat very gross in- 
 adequacy as fraud, and gave the defendant the remainder 
 of the costs, except of the inquiry as to value. 
 
 It is now, however, settled that the costs of such suits 
 should not be disposed of on the principle of redemption, 
 and that the defendant will not, even where the equity is 
 inadequacy of value only, be entitled to costs {Edwards 
 V. Burt, 2 De G. M. 8f G.55; Foster v. Roberts, 29 Beav. 
 467 ; St. Albyn v. Harding, 27 Beav. 11, 13 ; Talbot v. 
 Staniforth, 1 J. §• //. 484). In Salter v. Bradshaw, 
 
SUITS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 177 
 
 26 Beav. 161, a decree was made, but without costs, on 
 account of the lapse of time ; so in Foster v. Roberts, he. 
 cit, where the inadequacy was only £30 ; and in Talbot 
 V. Staniforth, loc. cit., on account of the bona fides of the 
 transaction, and the purchaser having acted from a desire 
 to keep the estates in the family ; and see Edwards v. 
 Burt, loc. cit. ; Bromley v. Smith, 26 Beav. 644, 675, 
 where, under the circumstances, no costs were given. In 
 St. Albyn V. Harding, loc. cit., the defendant had to pay 
 costs. But the plaintiif must, iu all cases, according to Costs 
 the rule stated ante, p. 73, pay the costs occasioned by o'^<=^sioned 
 unproven charges of fraud or oppression {JSdtcards v. of fraud. 
 Burt, loc. cit. ; St. Albyn Y. Harding, loc. cit. ; Jones v. 
 Ricketts, 10 TV. R. 576), 
 
 Where the bill is dismissed on the ground of lapse of Where the 
 time alone, the Court not being satisfied as to the trans- ^{^^^^ ^^ 
 action itself, it will be without costs {Sibbering v. Earl of account of 
 Balcarres, 3 De G. Sf S. 735 ; Lord Clanricarde y. time. 
 Henning, 30 Beav. 175). 
 
 Innocent assignees for value of the property have no Costs of 
 equity against the plaiatifF, as knowledge that the property ^^the^^^ 
 was acquired when reversionary, is notice of all the legal property. 
 incidents of such transaction ; see Tottenham v. Green, 
 1 N. R. 466, where a decree was made against sub- 
 mortgagees, but they were allowed to add their costs to 
 their securities as against their mortgagor ; and Cockell v. 
 Taylor, 15 Beav. 103, 119, where the sub-mortgagees 
 had to pay the costs of insisting on their securities. But 
 in Wharton v. May, 5 Ves. 27, the plaintiff had to pay 
 the costs of innocent holders of post-obit bonds, and 
 recover them from the principal defendants with his own. 
 
 Section XII. — Suits for Specific Performance. 
 
 Specific performance being in every case discretionary 
 with the Court, it is extremely difficult, as observed by 
 
178 COSTS IN PAETICULAE SUITS. 
 
 Mr. Bcames (p. 58, n.), to extract rules with respect to 
 
 the costs of suits for that purpose. 
 
 Where the "Where there is a fair objection to a title, on which the 
 
 onrof™ ^^ purchaser is justified in taking the opinion of the Court, 
 
 title; and though hc fails in substantiating it, the decree for specific 
 the title ia p*^ .,, . _, f -xi. x x / /• 7 7 • 
 
 good. performance will in most cases be without costs (^Aislahie 
 
 V. Rice, G Mad. 256 ; Thorp v. Freer, 4 Mad, 466 ; Cox 
 V. Chamberlain, 4 Ves. 631). So if the purchaser insists 
 on inquiry as to a matter of fact respecting which there 
 is a fair doubt (^Thorp v. Freer, loc. cit). And the same 
 principle applies, though the question is one of convey- 
 ance, and not of title (^Staines v. Morris, 1 V. ^ B. 8, 
 16). But the rule is not invariable (^Bishop of Winchester 
 V. Paine, 1 1 Ves. 1 94) ; and it may help the title to make 
 the purchaser pay costs {M' Queen v. Farquhar, 11 Ves. 
 467). Counsel's opinion is no protection to a purchaser 
 unsuccessfully objecting to a title against costs (^Moling v. 
 Hill, 1 Cox, 186; Thomas v. Townsend, 16 Jur. 736). 
 And where the purchaser had notice of a previous decision 
 in favour of the same title, the decree was made with costs 
 {Biscoe V. Wilks, 3 Mer. 456). 
 Where the On the Other hand there is no rule that a vendor failing 
 bad" or ^*^'' Want of title pays the costs of the suit ( Vancouver v. 
 doubtful. Bliss, 11 Ves. 463). It makes only a prima facie case for 
 costs, which may be outweighed by circumstances {Edwards 
 V. Harvey, Coop. 40). In White v. Foljamle, 11 Ves. 
 337, 463, where the question involved a point of law of 
 great difficulty, the vendor's bill was dismissed without 
 costs. And where the Court of Exchequer had pronounced 
 against the point, but in Lord Eldon's opinion wrongly 
 he dismissed the bill without costs {^Rose v. Calland, 5 Ves. 
 186). So in Willcox v. Bellaers, T. §• R. 491, where the 
 Master reported in favour of the title, but the Court dis- 
 missed the bill without costs, without either allowing or 
 disallovnng the exceptions. But in Bruce v. Bainhridge, 
 Sugd. V. ^ P. 648, where the Master reported in favour 
 of the title, but the Common Pleas, on a case sent to 
 
SUITS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 179 
 
 them, certified against it, the bill was dismissed with costs 
 from the date of the report. And, in general, if the title 
 is clearly bad, the bill will be dismissed with costs {Plmj- 
 ford V. Hoare, 3 F. §^ J". 175 ; Vancouver v. Bliss, he. cit.) ; 
 wliich may be done on motion after a reference on tlie 
 title {Walters v. Pynam, 19 Ves. 351). Where the title 
 deeds were burnt before the title was accepted, and 
 the vendor was unable to give secondary evidence, his 
 biU was dismissed with costs {Bryant v. Busk, 4 Russ. 1). 
 In Heseltine v. Simmons, 6 W. R. 268, where a claim 
 was raised by a person not a party to the suit, on which 
 the Court thought there was a reasonable doubt, the 
 vendor's bUl was dismissed without costs. Where also 
 the contract was for a lease determinable on notice, 
 and the defendant gave notice to determine it, the bill 
 was dismissed without costs ( Western v. Perrin, 3 V. Sf B. 
 197). It is immaterial on the question of costs that the 
 vendor is only a trustee for sale {Edwards v. Harvey, 
 loc, cit.). 
 
 Where the bill is dismissed against a purchaser with Costs of 
 costs, he is not entitled to the costs of objections argued argued™** 
 in chambers, but abandoned at the hearing {Hayes v. and abau- 
 Bailey, Sugd. V. §• P. 647). '^°°''^- 
 
 If the title *is found to be bad, unless some other jjarty wiere the 
 will concur, the vendor, though he obtains the concurrence <=°'^<=™^- 
 
 ° _ rence oi a 
 
 of such party, must pay the costs of the suit {Freer v. third 
 Hesse, 4 De G. M. 8f G. 497 ; Ashley v. Waugh, 9 L. J. ^ejlred. 
 n. s. ch. 31, 4 Jur. 572); and see Sidebotham v. Baring- 
 ton, 5 Beav. 261, where, however, the decree was made 
 without costs, as the defendant had not raised the objec- 
 tion till after the filing of the bill. But in Collard v. 
 Roe, 4 De G. ^ J. 525, where the purchaser insisted on 
 the concurrence of the vendor's dower trustee, the Court 
 held the objection tenable but vexatious and frivolous, 
 and gave no costs up to the hearing. 
 
 But if the purchaser files a bill, and it turns out that Costs m 
 the vendor cannot make a good title, the practice is to chasei-'a 
 
 N 2 
 
180 
 
 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 suit, when 
 title is 
 bad. 
 
 Where the 
 defect of 
 title is 
 known be- 
 fore suit. 
 
 Vendor 
 pays costs 
 up to the 
 time of his 
 showing a 
 good title. 
 
 dismiss the bill without costs {Lewis v. Loxham, 3 Mer. 
 429 ; Maiden v. Fyson, 9 Beav. 347 ; Thomas v. Bering, 
 
 1 K. 729; and see Sugd. V. §• P. 646). But it seems 
 that if the purchaser on the face of his bill insists that the 
 vendor cannot make a good title, he must pay costs 
 whether he accepts or refuses the title {Sugd. V. 8f P. 
 loc. cit., citing, but with a query, Nicloson v. Wordsworth, 
 
 2 Sloans. 365). The jDijrchaser cannot recover his costs 
 of the suit as damages in an action at law against the 
 vendor {Maiden v. Fyson, 11 Q. B. 292); but in Wood 
 V. Scarih, 2 K. 8f J. 33, 44, V. C. Wood dismissed the 
 bill without costs, but without prejudice to an action for 
 damages, and the costs of the suit being included in such 
 action. 
 
 It is very material on the question of costs whether the 
 purchaser knew of the objection when he entered into the 
 contract ( Cox v. Chamberlain, 4 Ves. 531). If a purchaser 
 files a bill with knowledge of the objections, and, the re- 
 port being against the title, he waives the objections, 
 he must pay the costs of investigating the title, but the 
 vendor the other costs {Bennett y. Fowler, 2 Beav. 302). 
 But secus, where no abstract is produced till the parties 
 are in chambers, though the only defect is one previously 
 known to the purchaser, for he is entitled to enquiry 
 {Wilson V. Williams, 3 Jur. n. s. 810). 
 
 If the vendor, on the other hand, has not shown a good 
 title before he files the bill, he must pay the costs of the 
 suit up to the time when a good title is first shown {Har- 
 ford V. Furrier, 1 Jfat?. 532 ; Wilson v. Allen, I J. Sf W. 
 611, 623; Leivin v. Guest, 1 Russ. 325; Townsend y. 
 Champernoiune, 3 F. §■ C. 505 ; Freer v. Hesse, 4 De G. 
 M. §■ G. 497 ; and see the earKer cases of Wynn v. 
 Morgan, 7 Ves. 202; SetonY. Slade, ibid. 279; Fielder 
 
 V, Higginson, 3 V. Sf B. 142 ; v. Collinge, 3 V. 
 
 Sf B. 143, n. ; Wilson v. Clapham, 1 J. Sf W. 36). And 
 it seems that if the purchaser takes no step inconsistent 
 with the finding in chambers, the vendor pays the whole 
 
SUITS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 181 
 
 costs of the suit {Suc/d. V. &: P. 648); but if the pur- 
 chaser raises unsuccessful objections to the title, no costs 
 of the reference will be given, or the purchaser \n\\ pay- 
 costs according to circumstances (^JVilson v. Jllen, loc. 
 cit. ; Toionsend v. Champernowne, loc. cit.). Where the 
 vendors had not made a good title until the production 
 of a certain document in chambers, but the purchaser 
 occasioned costs by unsuccessfully disputing the construc- 
 tion of the document, the decree was made without costs 
 {^IVeddall \. Nixon, 17 Beav. 170). Tlie costs of the 
 reference as to title in a purchaser's suit are thrown on 
 the vendor if the abstract is not produced till the parties 
 are in chambers, though the only defect was known to the 
 purchaser {^Wilson v. Williams, 3 Jur. n. s. 810). But of 
 course the rule will not apply, although additional deeds 
 are furnished after the bill is filed, if the Court thinks 
 the deeds not essential to the title (^Litchfield v. Brown, 
 23 L. J. ch. 176). T\Tiere the suit was occasioned by 
 the vendor's refusal to produce documents insisted on by 
 the purchaser, to some of which only he was entitled, no 
 costs were given {Neicall v. Smith, 1 J. §• W. 263). In 
 Grove V. Bastard, 1 De G. M. ^ G. 69, after the title 
 was approved the heir at law gave notice of his intention 
 to dispute the will and brovight an action, in which he 
 failed ; Lord Cottenham then, at the purchaser's request, 
 allowed the cause to stand over till the will was estab- 
 lished ; the heir at law having agaia failed, the vendor 
 was allowed the costs from the time of the first verdict 
 ao-ainst the heir at law, though Lord Truro seems to have 
 thousfht that it should be from the time when the title 
 ^v^as originally approved. 
 
 In Wilkinson v. Hartley, 15 Beav. 183, it was said But the 
 that the rule stated in the last paragraph ought to be not^ipp^y 
 strictly adhered to. But the fact of a title having been wliere the 
 first perfected m the course of the suit does not deternnne tion in the 
 the costs, if the real contest in the suit was on some other ^'j'^^^^ ^?^ 
 fiuestion or claim, and not the mere question of title. The the one of 
 
 ^ title ; 
 
182 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 costs in that case, including the costs of investigating the 
 title, will follow the event of the suit {Scoones v. Morrell, 
 1 Beav. 251; Croome v. Lediard, 2 My. §• K. 293; 
 Ahhott V. Sioorder, A Be G. Sj- S. 460 ; Peer* v. Sneyd, 17 
 iSeatj. 151 ; Carrodus v. Sharp, 20 Beav. 56 ; Bridges v. 
 Longman, 24 Sea«. 27 ; Z?/?e v. iorrf Yarborough, Johns. 
 70; Murrell v. Goodyear, 8 ^. i?. 398, 29 X. Ji ch. 425, 
 6 Jwr. M. s. 356 ; and see ^rfe v. Dallaway, 4 jBeaw. 
 606). But in Woodward v. MeVfer, 16 L. J. 16, 10 Jur. 
 1027, the defendant paid the costs of investigating the 
 title, which the Court thought under the circumstances 
 unnecessary. The Court looks to the real subject-matter 
 of the litigation, and where it is manifest that, if the 
 further abstract or particular evidence which completed 
 the title had been furnished, the suit would not have been 
 avoided, will not throw costs on the vendor {Monro v. 
 Taylor, 8 Ha. 51 ; s. c, affirmed on appeal, 3 Mac. §• G. 
 ortlie 713). So if the reason why the title was not completed 
 fn&isted''on ^^^^ because the defendant insisted on other objections to 
 other the title on which he failed, especially if it appears that 
 
 ' the vendor offered before suit the further evidence re- 
 quired in chambers {Long v. Collier, 4 Russ. 269 ; Hal- 
 wood V. Bailey, ibid. 271); but where the purchaser's' 
 objection is frivolous, the vendor is not warranted in con- 
 sidering it unnecessary to make out further title ( Wilkin- 
 son V. Hartley, 15 Beav. 183 ; and see Lyle v. Lord 
 or the Yarborough, Johns. 70). Again, if a purchaser having 
 
 partioiilar jjjj^jjg yarious obiections to the title, all of which have 
 
 objection "" _ 
 
 was not been removed before bill filed, afterwards raises an objec- 
 before bill ^^^^ which he might have taken but did not take before, 
 filed. the mere circumstance of an objection so taken not 
 
 having been removed until after the suit was instituted 
 will not determine the question of costs {Lyle v. Lord 
 Yarborough, loo. cit. ; Freer v. Hesse, 4 De G. M. §• G. 
 497). In MNichol v. Kay, 4 W. R. 801, 28 L. J. ch. 
 20, where the purchaser had failed in disputing the con- 
 tract as not bond fide, it was held that he must pay the 
 
SUITS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 183 
 
 costs of the title being investigated in chambers, but two 
 attendances only were allowed, because a good title was 
 not shown (apparently) until five fresh abstracts had been 
 delivered. \'\'Tiere the suit was originally occasioned by 
 the purchaser resisting his liability under the contract, 
 but he submitted after the bill was filed, and the suit 
 went on on the question of title, the plaintiff having re- 
 fused evidence which he afterwards produced paid costs 
 up to that point from the time of the defendant's sub- 
 mission, but the defendant, having then unnecessarily 
 forced the suit on to a hearing, paid the subsequent costs 
 {Parr v. Lovegrove, 4 Jur. n. s. 600). The Court is not 
 concluded from giving the vendor all the costs, by the fact 
 of an enquiry ha^s-ing been directed when a good title was 
 first shown, though it turns out to be after bill filed 
 {Abbott \. Sworder, loc. cit.). 
 
 If a purchaser by taking possession has waived investi- Where 
 gation into the title, a decree for specific performance will chaser^by 
 be made against him with costs irrespective of the title taJang 
 {Fleetioood v. Green, 15 Yes. 594; Margravine of Ans- or other- 
 pach V. Noel, 1 Mad. 310; Hall v. Laver, 3 Z. §• C. 191) ; 7^'^;^''^^^ 
 especially if he takes possession after delivery of an title. 
 abstract, on the face of which an objection appears 
 {Burnell v. Brown, I J. 8f TV. 168). But if the purchaser 
 takes possession at the vendor's instance he is relieved 
 from the ordinary consequences ( Vancouver v. Bliss, 1 1 
 Ves. 463). On the other hand, where the vendor unsuc- 
 cessfully insisted that the purchaser had accepted the title, 
 but his title proved good, the decree was made without 
 costs {31' Queen v. Farquhar, 11 Ves. 467). Where the 
 purchaser had retained possession for several years with- 
 out paying the purchase money, and refused either to 
 accept the title or give up the agreement, a decree to 
 have the agreement cancelled was made against him with 
 costs {King v. King, 1 My. ^ K 442). 
 
 Where the real contention in the cause is not a ques- Where 
 tion of title, but one affecting the contract itself, or some tjon ju the 
 
or some 
 collater 
 matter. 
 
 184 COSTS IN PARTICULAR SUITS. 
 
 suit is one collateral matter, the costs usually follow the event. Thus, 
 the con- where the defendant insisted that the contract had been 
 tract Itself, abandoned (Taylor y. Brown, 2 JBeav. 180: Bennett v. 
 
 or some \ J 
 
 collateral Fowler, ibid. 302) ; or where the purchaser resisted specific 
 performance on the ground of overvalue and misrepre- 
 sentation (^Abbott V. Sworder, 4 De G. §• S. 460) ; but in 
 Burrows v. Lock, 10 Ves. 470, a contract for purchase at 
 an undervalue was executed at the purchaser's instance, 
 it not amounting to fraud, but without costs. So again, 
 where the vendor has been guilty of misrepresentation, 
 though without fraud ( Vancouver v. Bliss, 11 Ves. 458 ; 
 Buxton V. Lister, 3 Atk. 382). And the Court will exer- 
 cise its discretion in dismissing a bill, and with costs, on 
 the ground of circumstances which would nevertheless not 
 be sufficient to cancel the agreement on the ground of 
 fraud {Davis v. Symonds, 1 Cox, 402). Unproven charges 
 of fraud, according to the ordinary rule {ante, p. 73) will 
 be visited with costs; see Wright v. Howard, 1 S.SfS. 190, 
 205, where the vendor's bill for specific performance was 
 dismissed with costs on the grounds of bad title and delay, 
 except as to bo much of the costs as were occasioned by 
 the defendant's charges of fraud, which the defendant had 
 to pay, and relief was granted on the defendant's cross 
 bill to have the agreement delivered up to be cancelled, 
 but without costs, because it charged fraud. But where 
 the evidence was unsatisfactory as to the circumstances 
 under which a contract was signed by a deceased vendor, a 
 bill against his heir-at-law and administratrix was dismissed 
 without costs ( Valentine v. Dickinson, 9 W. R. 625). 
 Where there has been a mutual misunderstanding, the 
 bill will be dismissed without costs {Stratford \. Bosworth, 
 2 V. 8f B. 341) ; and so where parol evidence of mistake 
 was admitted in opposition to specific performance {Mar- 
 quis of Townshend v. Stangroom, 6 Ves. 328). And if the 
 defendant does not raise his objection to specific perform- 
 ance till he files his answer, he will get no costs ( Winch v. 
 Winchester, 1 V. ^ B. 375). If parol evidence to vary 
 
SUITS FOK SPECIFIC PEIIFOEMANCE. 18j 
 
 tlie contract is introduced by the defendant, the bill should 
 strictlv be dismissed, and therefore if the Court makes a 
 decree, at the plaintiff's desire, for the specific performance 
 of the contract according to the defendant's evidence, the 
 plaintiff must pay the costs {^Fife v. Clayton, 13 Ves, 546 ; 
 Mortimer v. Orchard, 2 Ves. Jun. 243). But the Court 
 ■svill not receive parol evidence to vary the contract from 
 the plaintiff, and, therefore, a bill for specific performance 
 of a contract with parol variations, though left out by fraud, 
 was dismissed, but without costs ( Wollam v. Hearn, 7 Ves. 
 211). In Deller v. Simmonds, 5 Jur. n. s. 997, specific 
 performance was decreed, but without costs, on account of 
 the difficulty of the construction of the contract. But the 
 Court requires the parties to be active in asserting their 
 rights, and will punish delay by refusing costs ( Grover v. 
 Hugell, 3 Russ. 428 ; Burke v. Smyth, 3 j; ^i. 193 ; Bar- 
 rett V. Pearson, 2 B. ^- B. 189 ; Deane v. Lord Water- 
 ford, 1 Sch. §• X. 451, n.). And where both parties had 
 slept on their rights until recourse to the Court was un- 
 avoidable, no costs were given on either side, thou.gh the 
 plaintiff succeeded in the only real question in the suit 
 {Wallis V. Bastard, 4 De G. 31. §• G. 251). In Cowell 
 V. Watts, 2 H. i)- Tiv. 224, specific performance of a parol 
 agreement was refused, on the grounds of the plaintiff's 
 delay and acquiescence, with costs generally, but the 
 defendant was disallowed the costs of setting up the 
 statute of frauds, and denying part performance. Nego- 
 tiations after the contract, with a view to an amicable 
 compromise, do not affect the right to specific performance, 
 but may affect the costs {Bunning v. Bunning, 1 L. J. 
 56 ; Powell v. Martyr, 8 Ves. 146); but see on this point, 
 ante, p. 72. 
 
 WTiere the bill seeks specific performance with compen- where 
 sation, the plaintiff failing on that point must pay costs, p^rform- 
 thoueh a decree is made for specific performance generally ance with 
 {Feiosterv. Turner, U L. J. 161, where the question ot tion is 
 compensation was the only one in the cause, and the sought. 
 
186 
 
 COSTS IN PAKTICULAE SUITS. 
 
 Where the 
 question is 
 as to pay- 
 ment of 
 interest. 
 
 Costs of 
 suit occa- 
 sioned ty 
 Tender 
 dying 
 before 
 comple- 
 tion, leav- 
 ing an 
 infant 
 heir; 
 
 or 
 
 becoming 
 lunatic ; 
 or devising 
 to an 
 infant. 
 
 plaintiff paid all the costs ; Lyle v. Lord Yarborough, 
 Johns. 70, where the bill was dismissed so far as related 
 to compensation, with the costs of so much of the suit as 
 related to that claim) ; and so also where the bill is dis- 
 missed altogether (^Williams v. Edwards, 2 Sim. 78). 
 Where a claim for compensation failed because the Court 
 thought the representation in the particular likely to mis- 
 lead, but that being indefinite it should have put the pur- 
 chaser on inquiry, no costs were given {Fenton v. Brown, 
 14 Ves. 144). But where a purchaser obtains specific 
 performance with compensation, it will be in general 
 with costs [Leyland v. Illingworth, 2 De G. F. §• J. 248 ; 
 Gedge v. Duke of Montrose, 2'6 Beav. 45). Where the 
 purchaser claimed to have comprised in the agreement a 
 piece of land which was covered by the description, but 
 was not in the contemplation of either party, the bill 
 was dismissed with costs ( Calverly v. Williams, 1 Ves. 
 Junr. 210). So costs will follow the event, where the 
 question is as to the payment of interest on the purchase 
 money {Fludyer v. Cocker, 12 Ves. 25 ; but see Powell v. 
 Martyr, 8 Ves. 146 ; Sherwin v. Shakspeare, 17 Ves. 
 267). 
 
 It is now settled that if a vendor dies before the com- 
 pletion of the contract intestate, and leaving an infant heir, 
 no costs are given of the necessary suit for specific per- 
 formance {Hansony. Lake, 2 Y.^C. C, C. 328 ; Armitage 
 V. Askham, 1 Jur. n. s. 227 ; Hodson v. Carter, 1 N. R. 
 179 ; Scott V. Scott, 11 ^T. ^. 766). The earlier cases of 
 Prytherick v. Havard, 6 Sim. 9 ; and Midland Counties 
 Railway Company v. Westcomb, 11 Sim. 57, 2 Ry. Ca. 
 211, where the costs were allowed out of the purchase 
 money, are therefore overruled. So where the vendor 
 became a lunatic before completion ( Cresswell v. Haines, 
 8 Jur. n. s. 208). But where the vendor has devised the 
 estate to an infant, or in such a manner that a suit is 
 necessary, his estate must bear the costs, at least if the 
 will be made after the contract (Purser v. Darby, 1 K. ^ J. 
 
SUITS FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. 187 
 
 41 ; Sanderson v. Chadwick, 2 N. R. 414) ; but if the 
 will was made before the contract, no costs, it seems, 
 should be given (Murdin v. Patey, 1 N. R. 566 ; London 
 tji' South TVestern Railway Company v. Bridger, 12 TV. R. 
 948, 4 N. R. 261). But this distinction does not appear 
 to have been taken in the older cases, the decisions in 
 which, however, are not always consistent (see Farrar 
 V. Lord Winterton, 4 K §* C. 472 ; Wortham v. Lord 
 Dacre, 2 K. ^ J. 437, where the vendor's estate paid 
 the costs, though it does not appear when the will was 
 made; and Hinder v. Streeton, 10 Ha. 18; Bannerman 
 V. Clarke, 3 Drew. 632, where no costs were given). 
 Where the purchaser died before completion intestate. Purchaser 
 leaving an infant heir, the costs of a suit by the vendor j^testate. 
 against the heir and admiuistratrix for a resale, including 
 the costs of the heir to be paid by the plaintiff in the 
 first instance, were ordered to be paid by the adminis- 
 tratrix {Popple V. Henson, 5 De G. ^ S. 318). But 
 where the non-completion in the vendor's lifetime has 
 been caused by the purchaser's delay, he must pay the 
 costs (Barrett v. Pearson, 2 B. 8f B. 189). The costs 
 of a suit against a vendor's infant heir or devisee are 
 costs occasioned by adverse litigation within the meaning 
 of the 80th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation 
 Act {Armitage v. Ashham, 1 Jur. n. s. 227 ; and see 
 post, p. 192, n.). 
 
 Where the trustee for the vendor refused to convey. Where 
 and was made defendant to a bill for specific performance ^^tee 
 filed by the vendor, he was ordered to pay all the costs, or heir at 
 including those of the purchaser {Jones v. J^ewis, 1 Cox, refuses to 
 199); but if the purchaser insists on inquiries as to title, convey. 
 he must pay the costs subsequent to the hearing {Allen 
 V. Currie, 1 L. J. 135). The heir at law of a deceased 
 vendor had in like manner to pay the costs of a suit for 
 specific performance by the executor, he having refused 
 to convey and being a bare trustee {Hoddel v. Pugh, 12 
 W. R. 782). 
 
188 COSTS IN PARTICULAK SUITS. 
 
 Putlic A public company will not be entitled to the costs of 
 
 filineT^ a suit for specific performance, if they could have derived 
 bill. the same advantages by proceedings under their Act 
 
 {Ttegents Canal Company v. Ware, 23 Beav. 575). 
 Deposit Where a purchaser's bill is dismissed with costs, an 
 
 set off application to set off the deposit will be refused ( Williams 
 against y_ Edwards, 2 Sim. 78) ; although a refusal by the vendor 
 to return it may influence the costs ( Gee v. Pearse, 2 
 De G. §• S. 325); and see as to the return of the deposit. 
 Costs of Sugd. V. §• P. 66. Where the auctioneer was ordered 
 to pay the deposit into Court, he was allowed to deduct 
 all his costs, charges, and expenses {Annesley v. Mug- 
 geridge, 1 Mad. 593 ; Yates v. Far elr other, A Mad. 239). 
 But it is now settled that no person not a party to the 
 contract should be a party to a suit for specific perform- 
 ance ( Tasker v. Small, 3 My. §• C. 63). 
 Other In Machrell v. Hunt, 3 Mad. 34, n., the purchaser was 
 
 allowed the costs of a suit to perpetuate the testimony to 
 the execution of a will. Where the misstatement of the 
 vendor that a will had been proved occasioned a suit to 
 secure it, the vendor had to pay the costs of it (^Harrison 
 V. Coppard, 2 Cox, 318). 
 
 auctioneer. 
 
 costs. 
 
189 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAR ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. 
 
 Section 1. — Costs under Lands Clauses Consolidation 
 
 Act. 
 
 The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 (8 Vict. Lands 
 c. 18), gives to public companies compulsory powers to Qjf„"oi;. 
 take, upon certain terms, land belonging ' to parties having dation Act, 
 limited interests, or prevented from treating, or not making 
 title.' Sect. 69 of the Act provides that the purchase Section 69. 
 or compensation money payable for such lands, if amount- 
 ing to or exceeding £200, is to be paid into the Bank in 
 the name of the Accountant-General, to his account, ex 
 parte the promoters of the undertaking in the matter of 
 the special Act, and is to remain so until applied ' In 
 the purchase or redemption of the land tax, or the dis- 
 charge of any debt or incumbrance affecting the land in 
 respect of which such money shall have been paid, or 
 affecting other lands settled therewith to the same or the 
 like uses, trusts, or purposes ; or. In the purchase of other 
 lands, to be conveyed, limited, and settled upon the like 
 uses, trusts, and purposes, and in the same manner, as the 
 lands in respect of which such money shall have been paid 
 stood settled ; or. If such money shall be paid in respect of 
 any buildings taken under the authority of this or the 
 special Act, or injured by the proximity of the works, in 
 removing or replacing such buildings, or substituting others 
 in their stead, in such manner as the Court of Chancery 
 shall direct ; or. In payment to any party becoming ab- 
 solutely entitled to such money.' 
 
190 
 
 COSTS UNDEK PAETICULAE ACTS. 
 
 Section 80. The 80th section of the Act provides that ' In all cases 
 of monies deposited in the Bank under the provisions of 
 this or the special Act, or an Act incorporated therewith, 
 except where such monies shall have been so deposited by 
 reason of the wilful refusal * of any party entitled thereto 
 to receive the same, or to convey or release the lands in 
 respect whereof the same shall be payable, or by reason 
 of the wilful neglect of any party to make out a good title 
 to the land required, it shall be lawful for the Court of 
 
 Wilful * ^ ' ■'filful refusal ' is a refusal arising from an exercise of mere will or 
 
 refusal. caprice, and not from an exercise of reason — per Viee-ChanceUor of England 
 
 in Be East India Docks %c. Act, ex 'parte Bradshuw, 16 Sim. 174, where a 
 landowner having refused to accept purchase-money awarded to be paid to 
 him by a railway company, because he believed the award (which was after- 
 wards decided to be valid by the Queen's Bench, but only after a long 
 argument and after judgment reserved) to be invalid, was held not to have 
 been guilty of a ' wilful refusal ' within the section. A similar decision was 
 come to by V. C. Kindersley in Ex parte Bailston, 15 Jur. 1028. In that 
 case, a railway company having summoned a jury, the landowner, being 
 advised that notice had not been properly served on him, did not appear, 
 and the damages having been assessed in his absence were paid into Court, 
 it was held that the landowner was entitled to the costs of an application 
 to have them paid over to him. See, too. Be Windsor, Staines, Sf South 
 Western Bailway Act, 12 Beav. 622, and Ex parte Bashwood 3 Jur. n. s. 
 103, where a landowner, being advised by counsel that certain companies 
 had DO right to take his land, refused to sell, and was nevertheless held en- 
 titled to his costs. "Where a vendor cannot make a clear title by reason of 
 his not having paid off incumbrances of a larger amount than the land taken, 
 he is clearly not guilty of a ' wilful refusal,' Be Crystal Palace Bailway 
 Company ex -parte Bivers, 1 Jur. n. s. 995. Nor is the failure of the vendor 
 to procure his incumbrancers to concur in a petition to the Court for the 
 investment of the fund ' a wilful default' {Ibid.). See, too, cases cited 
 post. 
 
 But where a vendor insisted upon payment, not only of the purchase- 
 money, but of his costs also, before he gave up possession, and the company 
 consequently paid the purchase-money into the bank under the 76th 
 section of the Act, V. C. Wood, on a petition to obtain payment out of 
 the money, held that the vendor had been guilty of ' wilful refusal,' and had 
 thus disentitled himself to receive costs. Be Turner's Estate; Be Metro- 
 politan Bailway Act, 1860, 10 W. B. 128. The vendor was also ordered to 
 pay the costs of calling in the sheriff to give possession, Ibid. In another 
 case where the money was, by reason of the vendor's ' wilful refusal ' to con- 
 vey, paid into Court under the 76th section, a petition paid by the vendor 
 praying costs against the Company was dismissed mth costs, Ex parte Hyde, 
 V.C.K.B. March 27, 1851, cited in Seton on Becrees, Zrd ed., 1087. 
 
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 191 
 
 Chancery in England or the Cotirt of Exchequer in 
 Ireland to order the costs of the following matters, includino- 
 therein all reasonable charges and expenses incident 
 thereto, to be paid by the promoters of the undertaking ; 
 (that is to say,) the costs of the purchase or taking of the 
 lands, or which shall have been incurred in consequence 
 thereof, other than such costs as are herein otherwise pro- 
 yided for, and the costs of the investment of such monies 
 in government or real securities, and of the reinvestment 
 thereof in the purchase of other lands, and also the costs 
 of obtaining the proper orders for any of the purposes 
 aforesaid, and of the orders for the payment of the divi- 
 dends and interest of the securities upon which such 
 monies shall be invested, and for the payment out of Court 
 of the principal of such monies, or of the securities 
 whereon the same shall be invested, and of all proceedings 
 relating thereto, except such as are occasioned by litiga- 
 tion between adverse claimants.'* 
 
 * The words ' except such as are occasioned,' &c., refer to ' costs,' not to ' Except 
 ' proceedings ' (per Lord Justice Turner, in Se Cant's Estate, 1 De G. F. ^- J. such as are 
 153). The usual form of order (on which see Seton on Decrees, 1072, occasioned 
 Srd Ed., and see Ex parte Hooper, 1 Brew. 269) directs the company ' to ^7 litiga- 
 pay the costs of obtaining this order, &c., and of all the proceedings re- 
 lating thereto, except stick costs {if any) as are occasioned by litigation 
 between adverse claimants.' The latter words ought not to he omitted, 
 unless it is dear that there are no such costs ; see Ee Cant's Estate, uhi sup., 
 where the Lords Justices directed the words ' without prejudice to the course 
 which the taxing-master might take when the matter came before him,' to 
 be inserted. In a simple case the order should specify what costs fall 
 within the exception : Be Longworth's Estate, \ K. ^ J. \ ; Be TooJcey's 
 Estate, 16 Jur. 608 ; Ex parte Collins, 15 L. T. 362. 
 
 The exception only applies where there is an actual litis contestatio : Be What costs 
 Spooner's Estate, IK^ J. 220; Be Hungerford's Trusts, id. 413 ; Ex parte are within 
 Hooper, 1 Drew. 264. Thus where the land belonged to a devisee for Jife with s^ception 
 remainder to the testator's heirs, it was held that the company must pay the '° *^ " 
 costs of two petitions by two co-heirs, and also the costs of investigating the 
 title of other parties who claimed to be heirs, in answer to advertisements 
 ordered to be issued by the Court, except such costs as were occasioned by 
 affidavits of the petitioners in answer to such claims : Be Spooner's Estate, 
 1 K.4-J. 220. 
 
 It was said by V. C. Kindersley in Be TooTcey's Trust, 16 Jur. 708, 
 that the exception was not intended to apply to a question of construction 
 
 tion.' 
 
192 
 
 COSTS UNDER PAETICULAR ACTS. 
 
 General 
 rules as to 
 costs under 
 s. 80. 
 
 Costs of 
 suit, &e., 
 rendered 
 necessary 
 by death 
 of vendor 
 leaving 
 infant heir 
 or devisee. 
 
 Costs of 
 proceed- 
 ings under 
 Trustee 
 Act. 
 
 In cases of doubt, the Court, having regard to the large 
 compulsory powers given to the Company by the Act, 
 
 decided by the Court upon petition, but to a case where an action at law 
 was necessary to decide the rights of the parties. See, too, Ex parte Palmer, 
 13 Jur. 781, where V. C. Shadwell laid down that ' the exception in the 
 Act was intended to apply to such a case as where an action of ejectment 
 has been brought by one clamant of land against another,' axARe Singleton's 
 Estate, ex parte Fleetwood ^-c. Railway Company, 11 W. 2i. 871 ; where 
 it was said that the mere fact of difficulties occurring in ascertaining who 
 were the parties entitled to the money in Court, did not bring the ease 
 within the exception. 
 
 Wiere a question arising on the construction of a wiU relating to the pro- 
 perty taken was argued by the petitioner and the respondents, the company 
 was only ordered to pay one set of costs, Ee Mid Kent Railway Act, ex parte 
 Styan, Johns. 387. In another case, an additional application having been 
 rendered necessary by Ktigation, no order as to costs was made thereon (Ee 
 Jolliffe, 3 Jur. n. s. 633). But in Garpmael v. Frnjjitt, 23 L. J. ch. 165, it 
 was held that the fact of a second petition being rendered necessary by the 
 investment of the purchase monies in other lands sold in a pending suit did 
 not bring the case within the exceptions in the Act (see cases cited post), 
 
 "When a company has, by virtue of two different acts, taken two pieces of 
 land held under the same title, with knowledge that such title is disputed, 
 and taken a conveyance from both claimants, it must pay the costs of two 
 petitions for investment, including the costs in each case of the appearance 
 of the adverse respondents {Ee Butterfield, 9 W. R. 805). In Re Bagot, 
 10 W. R. 607, V. C. Kindersley, upon a special Act containing clauses as to 
 costs substantially the same as tbose in the Lands Clauses Consolidation 
 Act, decided that the company must pay all the costs of a petition to obtain 
 payment of money out of court, involving a question of disputed conversion, 
 except the costs of the petitioner and of a respondent, both of whom had 
 failed in their contentions. 
 
 The costs of a suit rendered necessary by the death of a vendor leaving an 
 infant heir or devisee, are within the exception : Armitage v. Askam, 3 Jur. 
 n. s. 227 ; Eastern Counties Railway Company v. Tufnell, 3 Rly. Ca. 133. 
 See, too, Purser v. Darby, i Rly. Ca. 41 ; Cresswell v. Haines, 8 Jur. n. s. 208 ; 
 and Scott v. Scott, 11 W. R. 766, where no costs were given, London ^ 
 South Western Railway Company v. Bridger, i N. R. 261. In the earlier 
 case oi Midland Counties Railway Company v. Westcombe, 11 Sim. 67, the 
 costs of a suit by a company for specific performance occasioned by the death 
 of a vendor intestate and leaving an infant heir, were ordered to be paid out 
 of the purchase money. Comp. Midland Counties Railway Company v. 
 Caldecott, 2 Rly. Ca. 394. So where the legal right of admittance to copy- 
 holds taken by the company was outstanding in the heir of an infant trustee, 
 the company was held not to be liable to pay the costs of a petition under 
 the Trustee Act to obtain a conveyance from the heir. Re South Wales Rail- 
 way Company, 14 Beav. 418. AYhere, however, freehold lands had been 
 taken by a railway company from the transferee of a deceased mortgagee, 
 whose heir could not be found, it was held that the company were, under 
 
LAN-DS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 193 
 
 leans towards making the Company pay the costs (see 
 observations of Lord Lyndhurst in Re Great Western 
 Railway Company, ex parte Marshall, 1 Ph. 560; of 
 V. C. Stuart in Re Jones' Settled Estates, 4 Jur. n. s. 
 581 ; and of Lord Langdale in Re Hull and Selby Rail- 
 way Company, 5 Ry. Ca. 458). 
 
 The foUomng costs have been held to be payable by What costs 
 the Company under this Act. payable by 
 
 . . . Company. 
 
 The costs of a petition to invest the purchase monies of 
 glebe land in the erection of a new parsonage house (Re 
 London, Chatham, Sf Dover Railway Company, 1 J. 8^ 
 H. 610); or in the drainage of glebe lands {Re Vicar of 
 Queen Camel, 11 IF. R. 503); the costs of an applica- 
 tion to lay out the money in rebuilding (Re Thorner's 
 Charity, 12 L. J. 266 ; Re Kent Coast Raihvay Com- 
 pany, ex parte Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, 10 W. 
 R. 505 ; comp. Re Partington's Trusts, 11 W. R. 160) ; or 
 of erecting temporary accommodation buildings (Re St. 
 Thomas's Hospital, 11 TF. R. 1018 ; but see contra. Re 
 Rudyerd's Trusts, 2 Gif. 394, and other cases cited 
 below) ; the costs of a petition to enfranchise copyholds, and 
 of the proceedings connected therewith (Dixon v. Jack- 
 son, 25 L. J. ch. 588) ; of a power of attorney to take the 
 money out of Court (Re Godley, 10 Ir. Eq. R. 222 ; Ex 
 parte Incumbent of Guilden Sutton, 8 De G. M. §■ G. 380 ; 
 
 this section, bound to pay the costs of a petition by the vendor for the ap- 
 pointment of a person to convey under the Trustee Act, 1850 (Be Nash's 
 Estate, i W. E. Ill); secus if there has been a special agreement that 
 the company should pay all costs and expenses ' of and incidental to the 
 conveyance.' Lake v. Eastern Counties Railway Company, 19 L. T. 323. 
 
 Where an estate was limited to B. for life, with remainder to his first and Costa 
 other sons in tail, with remainder to B. in fee, and B. devised all his real occasioned 
 estate in strict settlement, and after the date of the will a company pur- °y ysmor s 
 chased part of the estate from him under the powers of the Act, it was held , ^^jt";? 
 on B's death without issue, that the company must pay the costs of invest- strict 
 ing the purchase-money in real estate to be settled to the uses of the will, settlement, 
 Ee De Beauvoir's Settled Estates, 2 De G. F. Sf J. 5, reversing s.c. 8 W.E. 
 625, V.C.K. A doubt was expressed as to whether if B. had died intestate 
 his heir-at-law would not have been entitled to an investment in land at the 
 expense of the company. 
 
 O 
 
194 COSTS UNDER PAETICULAR ACTS. 
 
 2 Jur. n. s. 793) ; of redeeming the land tax (iZe London Sf 
 Brighton, 8fc. Railway Company, 18 Beav. 608 ; 23.X. T. 
 216 ; Re Vicar of Queen Camel, 11 W. R. 503 ; Ex parte 
 Beddoes, Re Shrewsbury §• Hereford Railway Act, 2 
 Sm. §• (?. 466) ; the brokerage payable to the Accountant 
 General on the investment of the purchase money in stock 
 (^Ex parte Braithwaite, Re Kendal §• Westmoreland 
 Railway Act, 1 Sm. Sf G. App. xv. ; Ex parte Earl of 
 Harborough, 22 L. T. 115; Ex parte Corporation of 
 Trinity House, Z Hare, 95); the costs of an order for 
 obtaining payment to a new incumbent of the dividends 
 of stock in which the purchase-money had been invested, 
 such dividends being by the order made payable to the 
 incumbent and his successors (^Ex parte Incumbent of 
 Guilden Sutton, 8 De G. M. §• G. 380, 2 Jur. n. s. 793) ; 
 and the costs of the half-yearly sales of stock, representing 
 the purchase monies of leaseholds taken by the Company, 
 which became necessary for the purpose of distribution 
 between the tenants for life and remaindermen {Re 
 Long's Estate, 1 W. R. 226). 
 
 It seems that the Company are, under this section, 
 liable to pay the costs of apportioning ground rents 
 between houses taken by a railway company and those 
 left {Re Hampstead Junction Railway Company, ex parte 
 Buck 1 H. Sf M. 519, post, p. 209). 
 What costs But the costs of obtaining an order for investment of 
 payable. ^he purchase monies in the erection of new farmhouses 
 {Re Oxford, Worcester, Sf Wolverhampton Railway 
 Company, ex parte Melward^s Devisees, 27 Beav. 571); 
 or in the alteration of almshouses {Re Bucks Railway 
 Act, 14 Jur. 1065); have been held not to be payable by 
 the Company. Nor do the fines payable on a reinvest- 
 ment in copyholds fall on the Company {Ex parte Vicar 
 of Sawston, Re Eastern Counties Railway Company's Act, 
 6 W. R. 492 ; 4 Jur. n. s. 473.) 
 Costs of The costs occasioned by the application of the purchase 
 
 ing^incum- monies in the discharge of incumbrances affecting other 
 brancea. lands belonging to the vendor were in Ex parte The Cor- 
 
LANDS CLATJSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 195 
 
 pnration of Sheffield ; Re Manchester, Sheffield, §• Lincoln- 
 shire Railway Company, 20 Beav. 162 ; Ex parte Sheffield 
 Town Trustees ; Re Sheffield Waterworks Company, 8 W. 
 R. 602 ; Ex parte Hardwich, 1 De G. 31. §• G. 297 ; and 
 Re Yeates, 12 Jur. 279, held not to be payable by the 
 company. See, however, Ex parte Trafford, 2 Y. Sf C. 
 Eade Rep. 5'2'2 ; Ex parte The Bishop of London, 2 De 
 G. F. Sf J. 14 ; and Re London &; South-Western Railway 
 Act, 2 J. ^' H. 390, where, under special circumstances, 
 the company were ordered to pay the costs of a petition 
 presented to obtain the discharge of an incumbrance. 
 
 A question frequently arose upon the construction of Costs of 
 special Acts as to the liability of the company to pay the ^„ ^^g^" 
 costs of a disentailing deed executed for the purpose of 
 enabling persons entitled as tenants in tail to the land 
 taken to obtain payment of the purchase or compensation 
 monies to themselves. In Re Nicholas Brooking' s Devisees, 
 2 Giff. ZI-, Ex parte Marshall, 1 Phil. 560, 4 Rly. Ca. 
 58 ; and Ex parte Slater's Devisees, 5 Rly. Ca. 200, such 
 costs were held to be payable by the company ; and in Ex 
 parte Thoroton, 12 Jur. 130, 17 L. J. ch. 167, they were 
 held not to be so payable. In more recent cases, how- 
 ever, it seems to have been thought that no disentailing 
 deed is necessary in such cases (Re Holden ; Re London 
 §• North- Western Railway Company, 1 H. ^ M. 445 ; 
 Re South-Eastern Railway Company, 30 Beav. 215 ; 
 Re Tyler's Estate, 8 W. R. 560; Sowry v. Sowry, 8 
 W. R. 339); and if this be so it would of course follow 
 that the costs of the execution of such a deed ought 
 not to be allowed against the company. See, however. 
 Re Vawdreys Trusts, 3 Gif 224. It may be questioned 
 whether, notwithstanding the above decisions, the rights 
 of the remaindermen to the money paid into Court are 
 effectually barred, without a disentailing deed. 
 
 It often happens that lands taken by a railway com- Costs 
 pany are the subject of a suit pending in the Court of ^y lanT*^ 
 Chancery. In such cases a question arises as to how far taken, 
 
 o 2 
 
196 COSTS UNDER PAETICULAR ACTS. 
 
 being the Company are bound to pay such additional costs as 
 
 puit.*"^ ° ^^J ^^y& been occasioned by the pending of the suit. 
 There can be no doubt that, subject to the rules here- 
 after laid down as to costs of unnecessary services and 
 appearances, the company are bound to pay all such costs. 
 Thus, in the leading case of Haynes v. Barton, 1 Drew, 
 §■ 8m. 483, where land which formed the subject of a suit 
 was taken by a railway company, and a petition was pre- 
 sented in the suit and also in the matter of the Act for the 
 reinvestment of the purchase money (which had been paid 
 into Court), the company were ordered to pay the costs 
 of the tenant for life and of the persons interested in 
 remainder in the land taken by them who were parties to 
 the suit and served with the petition ; and they were also 
 ordered to pay the costs of former proceedings in the suit 
 which had been occasioned by the company's taking the 
 land. Again, in Dinning v. Henderson, 2 De G. §■ Sm. 
 485, on a petition presented by the plaintiff in the cause, 
 asking that the fund might be transferred to the credit of 
 the cause the company were ordered to pay all the costs 
 of the application, including the costs of the parties to 
 the cause who had been served and appeared. See, too, 
 lie London ^North-Western Railway Company^s Act, Ex 
 parte Baroness of Br aye, \\ W. R. 333. The same course 
 was pursued by Lord Langdale in Re The Hull §■ Selby 
 Railway Company, 5 Rly. Ca. 458 ; and comp. Carpmael 
 V. Froffitt, 23 L. J. ch. 165 ; Re Long's Estate, \2 W. R. 
 460; Henniker v. Chafy, post, p. 196. See, however. 
 Re Picton's Estate, 3 W. R. 327 ; and Hore v. Smith, 14 
 Jur. 55, where V. C. Knight Bruce is reported to have 
 said that the company must pay only such costs as they 
 would have paid if the petition had been presented in the 
 matter of the Act and not in the cause. This decision 
 as pointed out by V. C. Kindersley in Haynes v. Barton, 
 1 Drew. §• Sm. 491, seems opposed to Dinning v. Hender- 
 son, cited above. The cases of Melling v. Bird, 22 L. J. 
 ch. 599, 17 Jur. 155 ; and Re Picton's Estate, 3 W. R. 
 
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 197 
 
 327, are no exceptions to the rule laid down ia Dinning 
 
 V. Henderson, as aU that was decided in those cases was, 
 
 that the company were not bound to pay the costs of parties 
 
 who had been improperly served. As to this, see infra. 
 
 In a recent case before V. C. Wood, Eden v. Thompson, Costs of 
 
 4 iV. R. 87, 12 IV. R. 759, it was stated that in future it f^erences, 
 
 &c. 
 would be unnecessary for a plaintiff moving to transfer a 
 
 fund paid into Court under the Act to the credit of a 
 cause to serve the defendants, and it was intimated that 
 the costs of servino; them would not be allowed against 
 the company. 
 
 In Picard v. Mitcliell, 12 Beav. 486, where the lands 
 taken were the subject of an administration suit, in 
 which persons rmder disability were interested, and a 
 reference was directed to the Master as to which course 
 would be most beneficial for the parties interested, the 
 company were ordered to pay all the costs of the petition 
 and the reference. The case of Picard v. Mitchell was 
 followed in Henniker v. Chafy; Re Manchester §■ Leeds 
 Railway Company, 28 Beav. 621. In that case, land, the 
 subject of an administration suit, having been taken by 
 a company under their compulsory powers, several pro- 
 ceedings and appHcations were taken and made in the 
 suit ^^-ith reference to the propriety of the sale, to which 
 proceedings and applications the company were not 
 parties. The Court held that the company were bound 
 to pay the costs of all parties of obtaining the several 
 orders in the suit, including all reasonable charges and 
 expenses incident thereto and the costs of an application 
 to transfer the fund into the suit. See also an unre- 
 ported case of Lord Egremont v. Thompson, before V. C. 
 Kindersley, Nov. 1858, cited 28 Beav. 625, where the 
 costs of a reference in the cause to ascertain whether 
 the purchase was proper, and the costs of the appearance 
 of all parties to the suit and of a mortgagee on an appli- 
 cation to invest the purchase money in bank annuities, 
 were ordered to be paid by the company. 
 
198 
 
 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAR ACTS. 
 
 Costs of 
 references, 
 &c., in 
 lunacy. 
 
 Costs of 
 
 service 
 
 generally. 
 
 Costs of 
 serving 
 
 In another case, the committees of a lunatic contracted 
 with the company under the Act for a sale of part of the 
 lunatic's land, and a reference was directed to the Master 
 to enquire into the propriety of the contract. The 
 Master having reported in favour of the contract the com- 
 mittees presented a petition to confirm the Master's report. 
 It was held that the company were liable to pay the costs 
 both of the petition and the reference {Re Taylor, 1 Mac. 
 8fG. 210). See, too, Re Walker, 1 Rly. Ca. 129, where the 
 costs of the appearance of the lunatic's heir were allowed 
 against the company. 
 
 The rule which requires the company to pay all the 
 costs occasioned by the fact of the lands taken being the 
 subject of a suit, has entailed considerable hardship upon 
 companies, who, in cases where the parties to the suit 
 have been numerous, have frequently been called upon 
 to pay costs to an amount far exceeding the value of the 
 land taken. To remedy this hardship, certain salutary 
 rules have been laid down with regard to service and 
 appearance on petitions under the Act. 
 
 Thus, when the plaintiffs who were entitled to one- 
 tenth of a testator's estate presented a petition for a 
 transfer of the fund to the credit of the cause and served 
 the trustees and the parties entitled to the other nine- 
 tenths, who appeared by four separate solicitors, the 
 Court, on the ground that such appearance was oppres- 
 sive, refused to make the company pay any costs except 
 those of the petitioner and the trustees {Melling v. Bird, 
 22 L. J. ch. 599, 17 Jur. 155 ; see, too, Haire v. Levitt, 
 12 L. T. 307). In a recent case {Sidney v. Wilmer, 31 
 Beav. 338) on a petition to transfer the fund into the 
 cause and to accumulate the dividends, the company were 
 held only bound to pay the costs of the petitioners and 
 the costs of serving the respondents, but not the costs of 
 their appearance, on the ground that although served they 
 ought not to have appeared. 
 
 It has been held that, upon a petition by a tenant for 
 
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 199 
 
 life for investment of purchase monies paid into Court remaiuacr- 
 by the company the remaindermen need not be served J^es'&r* 
 (-£".!• parte Staples; Re Browne, 1 De G. M. §• G. 294); 
 and if he is served and appears, the costs of his appear- 
 ance will not be allowed against the company ( Wilson 
 V. Foster, 26 Beav. 298 ; and see Re Legge's Estate, 8 
 ir. R. 559 ; but compare Re Baroness of Braye, 9 Jur. 
 n. s. 454). As to trustees, the rule seems to be dif- 
 ferent (see £x parte The East Norfolk Railioay Com- 
 pany, cited and followed by V. C. Kindersley in Re 
 The Duke of Cleveland/ s Harte Estates, 1 Dreiu. §• 
 Sm. 48, overruling, on this point, Wilson v. Foster, ante, 
 where the costs of the trustees were disallowed against 
 the company, comp. Re BurreWs Estate, 12 W. R. 568). 
 Where the money might have been paid out of Court 
 on the petition of the tenant for life, but for the con- 
 venience of persons entitled under a settlement it was 
 wished to deal with the money in a special manner 
 under the provisions of a private Act of Parliament, it 
 was held that the costs of the trustees and remaindermen 
 under the settlement, who had been served, were not 
 payable by the company (J?e Bowes' Estate, A N. R. 
 2>15, 12 W. R. 927). 
 
 A distinction was taken by V. C. Kindersley in Distinction 
 Bradshaw'Y. Fane, Re London &; North Western Rail- y^™ 
 
 ^ found 
 
 tcay Company, 1 N. R. 159, 9 Jur. n. s. 166, between a standingto 
 fund standing to the credit of the matter of an Act of *f ^^ca^'e 
 Parliament, and a fund standing to the credit of the 
 cause, whether generally or to a separate account, as 
 well as to the credit of the matter of the Act. In the 
 latter case it was said that aU the parties to the cause 
 must be before the Court on a petition to reinvest the 
 fund, and the company must pay their costs. See, too. 
 Re South Eastern Railway Company, 32 L. J. ch. 20 ; * 
 Brandon v. Brandon, 9 Jur. n. s. W ; but comp. Eden 
 V. Thompson, cited ante, p. 197. 
 
 As regards the necessity of service on a mortgagee of Costs of 
 
200 COSTS UNDEB PAETICULAE ACTS. 
 
 serving ^he fund, and the costs of such service, the cases were 
 
 mortgages, . , n- • ^ • j> 
 
 until recently in a very conflicting and unsatisiactory 
 state. In the earlier cases the costs of incumbrancers 
 on the corpus were allowed agaiust the company [Re 
 Webster, 2 Sm. ^ G. App. vi. ; Re Nash, 25 L. J. ch. 29 ; 
 ^x parte Peyton, 2 Jur. n. s. 1013). In Re HatfieWs 
 Estate, Re Leeds Waterworks Act, 29 Beav. 370, the 
 costs of a mortgagee's appearance on a petition for pay- 
 ment to him of the fund in Court were held not to be 
 payable by the company. But this case seems to be 
 overruled by Re Brooke, 30 Beav. 233, before the same 
 Judge. See, too. Re London ^ North Western Railway 
 Company'' s Act, Ex parte Baroness of Braye, 11 W. R. 
 333 ; and Re Brooke, 12 W. R. 1138. 
 
 It seems, however, that the company are not bound to 
 pay the costs of an incumbrancer on the interest of a 
 tenant for life (^Ex parte Smith, 6 Rly. Ca. 150), unless 
 they are served at the instance of the company (iJe 
 Hunger ford, 1 JT. ^ J". 413). It is clear that when a 
 mortgage only affects part of the land, but not the part 
 taken by the company, the company will not be ordered 
 to pay the costs of the mortgagee, if served {Re Yeates, 
 12 Jur. 279). So where a small portion of the estate 
 only was in mortgage, and it became necessary to apply 
 to the Court in. a pending suit to obtain a release from 
 the mortgagee, it was held that the company were not 
 liable to pay the costs of the application {Re London §• 
 South Western Railway Company, Ex parte Phillips, 1 1 
 W. R. 54, reversing s. c. 2 J. 8f H. 392). 
 
 The costs of a mortgagee, whose incumbrance has been 
 
 created after the lands were taken and the money paid 
 
 into Court, are not payable by the company {Re Middle 
 
 Level Drainage §• Navigation Commissioners, June 23, 
 
 .- 1864, V. C. K.). 
 
 Other Where the mortgagee of a tenant for life of lands taken 
 
 persons. j^y ^ railway company dies, and the mortgagor and the 
 
 executors of the mortgagee petition for payment of the 
 
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 201 
 
 ili\-idencls to a transferee of the mortgagee, the company- 
 are not liable to pay the costs of the petition {Re Byrom's 
 Trusts, 5 Jur. n. s. 26 ; 7 JV. R. 367). 
 
 A^Tiere the purchase monies of leaseholds were ordered 
 to be carried to the account of two lessees, and the divi- 
 dends were ordered to be paid to one of them and the 
 executrix of the other, it was held that the company, 
 having been unnecessarily served with a petition for pay- 
 ment of the dividends to the husband of the executrix, who 
 had married, were entitled to their costs from the petitioner 
 {Ex parte Hordern, 2 De G. ^ S. 263). So when the 
 dividends of a sum in. Court had been ordered to be 
 paid to the trustees of a charity, of which new trustees 
 were appointed, it was held that the company were not 
 liable to pay the costs of a petition for payment of the 
 dividends to the new trustees {Re Andenshaw School, 1 
 N. R. 255). In Re Midland Railway Company, 11 Jur. 
 1095, a party entitled to an aliquot share of purchase 
 money was held entitled to payment out of such share, 
 without service on the other persons interested, the Court 
 holding that the company must be considered as pro- 
 tecting their interests. On a petition for reinvestment of 
 the purchase monies of lands taken by the company in 
 other lands, the vendors of the second lands, having been 
 served with, and appearing on the petition, were ordered 
 to have their costs as against the petitioners, but the 
 petitioners were not to have such costs over again against 
 the company {Re The Yorkshire, Doncaster, Sfc. Railway 
 Company, Re Dylar's Estate, 1 Jur. n. s. 975). Again, 
 where the purchase monies were invested, and the divi- 
 dends paid to the tenant for life, and on her death her 
 husband resettled the property, and presented a petition 
 for payment to himself, it was held that the Company 
 were not liable to pay the costs of the petition {Re Pick, 
 31 L. J. ch. 495). 
 
 The company are not liable to pay the costs of a 
 petition to pay money to a party who by arrangement 
 
202 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAR ACTS. 
 
 between the parties only has been nominated as the hand 
 
 to receive it (i2e London §• North- Western Railway Com- 
 
 ■panyh Act, ex ■parte Baroness of Bray e, 11 W. R. 333). 
 
 Ordinary. As to the costs of Serving the ordinary, and of his 
 
 appearance on the petition where his consent is required, 
 
 see Ex parte Vicar of Creech St. Michael, 21 L. J. ch. 
 
 677, where such costs were allowed ; but compare £x 
 
 parte Bishop of London, 2 De G. F. §• J. 14, where 
 
 Ecelesias- the costs of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, whose 
 
 irUssionei's. Consent was necessary to the investment ; and Re Incum- 
 
 Governors bent of Wliitfield, \ J. ^ H. 610, where the costs of the 
 
 Anne'r" governors of Queen Anne's Bounty were disallowed 
 
 bounty. against the company. 
 
 Tenants in Tenants in common interested in money paid into 
 common. Qq^j.^ by a company are entitled to their costs of appear- 
 ing separately on an application by one of them for pay- 
 ment of the money to an incumbrancer of the whole {Re 
 Braye, 9 Jur. n. s. 454). 
 Attorney- The costs of the Attorney-General on a petition 
 entitled under Sir S. EomiUy's Act, 52 Geo. III., c. 101, 
 are payable by the company {Re London, Brighton, Sf 
 South-coast Railway Company, 18 Beav. 608). 
 Where Where lands are taken by several companies, the costs 
 
 companies. °^ ^ petition to reiQvest the purchase monies in the pur- 
 chase of other lands must be borne by the companies in 
 equal shares, except the costs of the ad valorem stamp on 
 the conveyance, which must be borne by them rateably 
 according to the amounts contributed by each to the 
 purchase monies (Lx parte Bishop of London, 2 De G. F. 
 ^ J. 14 ; Re Maryport §■ Carlisle Railway Company, 1 
 N. R. 506, 11 W. R. 410; Re Byron's Settled Estates, 
 1 De G. J. ^ S. 358; Re Merton College, ibid. 361 ; The 
 London §• Brighton Railway Company v. The Shropshire 
 Union Railway, §-c. Company, 23 Beav. 605), except in 
 cases of peculiar hardship (see 1 De G. J. ^ S. 360, 
 364). The cases of Ex parte The Governors of St. 
 Thomas's Hospital, 7 W. R. 425, Ex parte Christ Church, 
 
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 203 
 
 9 IF. R. 474, where the costs were ordered to be appor- 
 tioned, seem now to be overruled. 
 
 "Where lands, settled in the same manner, have been 
 purchased by dilFerent railway companies and the purchase « 
 monies paid into Court and invested, and the tenant for 
 life afterwards dies, the orders directing payment of the 
 dividends of the several funds to the person next entitled, 
 may all be obtained upon the same petition; and the 
 railway companies will not ia future be required to pay 
 the costs of more than one petition (i?e Lord Brake's 
 Estate, 1 N. R. 568). The point being a new one, how- 
 ever, the petitioner was not deprived of his additional 
 costs out of pocket (ibid.'). Where several companies Wiere 
 severally paid into Court certain purchase monies and <'°'"P^''"-'^ 
 afterwards two of them amalgamated, it was held that in mated. 
 dividing the costs the two amalgamated companies must 
 be treated as separate companies (i?e Maryport ^ Carlisle 
 Railway Company, 1 N. R. 545, \\ W. R. 507). 
 
 Where land is taken by a railway company under the Costs 
 powers of a special Act of Parliament which authorises special 
 the investment of the purchase money in the pur- ^<^^^- 
 chase of other lands, it has been held that the Court 
 cannot order the company to pay the costs of a transfer 
 to the person becoming absolutely entitled, although, had 
 the petitioner prayed a reinvestment in land, they might 
 have been liable to pay much larger costs (J?e Bristol 
 §• Eastern Railway Act; Re Land's Trusts, i K. Sj- J. 
 81; Re Bristol Sf Eastern Railway Act, ex parte Gore 
 Langton, 11 Jur. 686; Re Musgrave, 6 Jur. n. s. 797; 
 Re Stocken's Estate, 9 Hare, 185 ; Ex parte Thoroton, 
 Re Midland Counties Railway Company, 17 L. J. ch. 
 167 ; Mitchell v. Newell, 3 Rly. Ca. 315 ; Re Cooke, 7 Jur. 
 639, where the petition was for an interim investment ; 
 Ex parte Molyneux ; Re Liverpool Sf Manchester Railioay 
 Act, 2 Coll. 273, where the petition prayed that part of 
 the money might be invested in stock. Re Tofts, 2 Jur. 
 n. s. 131 ; and Ex parte Slater's Devisees, 5 Rly. Ca. 700, 
 
204 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAR ACTS. 
 
 contra turned on the special wording of the Act). But 
 a different rule seems to have been adopted in cases 
 transferred to the Court of Chancery from the Court of 
 * Exchequer {Re Robertson, 23 Beav. 433 ; Re Tiverton 
 Market Act {No. 2), 26 Beav. 230 ; and see the earher 
 cases of Ex parte Northwick, 2 F. §• Coll. {Exch.) 166 ; 
 Ex parte Tr afford, 2 Y. 8f Coll. {Exch.) 522 ; Ex parte 
 Bishop of Durham, 3 F. ^ Coll. {Exch.) 690). But see 
 contra, Re Mouseleys Trusts, cited in note to 4 ^. §• J. 
 86 ; and Re Metford, 8 W. R. 634, V.C. K., where it 
 was held that, although the practice of the Court of 
 Exchequer was to make the company pay costs, whether 
 they were given by the Act or not, yet, where a company 
 constituted previous to the transfer of the equity juris- 
 diction of that Court to the Court of Chancery pays 
 purchase money into Court j)revious to such transfer, but 
 subsequently thereto a petition is presented for payment 
 out of Court, the question is governed by the rules of 
 the Court of Chancery, and not by those of the Court 
 of Exchequer, and the company are not liable to pay 
 the costs. See further as to interim investments under 
 special Acts, infra, p. 206. 
 Where Where the company was amalgamated with another 
 
 ClTuseg company by an Act which incorporated the Lands Clauses 
 Act incor- Act, it was held that the right of the landowner as to 
 ^t^ " costs was governed by the earlier Act {Re Holden's Estate, 
 
 special 1 Jur. n. s. 995 ; Re NeachelVs Trusts, 3 W. R. 634 : Re 
 acts. ' 
 
 Doncaster's Settled Estates, V.C. W., cited in note to 3 
 
 W. R. 635 ; and Ex parte Molyneux, 2 Coll. 273, cited 
 above). But in a later case, before the Lords Justices, 
 where monies had been deposited under a special Act 
 which did not provide for the costs of obtaining payment 
 out of Court of the deposited monies, but which was re- 
 enacted by a subsequent Act incorporating the Lands 
 Clauses Act, the Court of Appeal held that the rio-ht of 
 the landowner to costs was governed by the Lands 
 Clauses Act {Re Ellison's Estate, 8 De G. M, §• G. 62, 
 
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 205 
 
 following Ex parte Eton College, Re London Sf Birming- 
 ham Railwag Act. 15 Jur. 45). AVliere a railway com- 
 pany under the compulsory powers of the Lands Clauses 
 Act took lands which had been settled by a private Act 
 of Parliament and could only be conveyed to them under 
 the powers in the latter Act, it was held that they were 
 liable to costs under the Lands Clauses Act {Re Shuttle- 
 worth's Estate; Re Blackburn Railway Amalgamation 
 Act, 4 Giff. 87, 8 Jur. n. s. 1090). 
 
 On a petition for the payment out of Court of monies Costs 
 paid into Court by the Commissioners of Public Works gomm?.^^ 
 on a purchase made under the provisions of the 9 & 10 sioners of 
 Vict., c. 34, which incorporates the provisions of the 
 3 & 4 Vict., c. 87, the commissioners, as promoters of the 
 undertaking, were held, on appeal, not to be liable, under 
 the 80th section of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 
 1845, to pay the costs of such application (In re Cherry's 
 Settled Estates, 10 TF. R. 305, overruling s. c. 10 W. R. 
 54). See, however. Re Edmeade's Estate, 8 W. R. 327. 
 
 The Court will take care that the company are not put Costs of 
 to vexatious and unnecessary costs. Thus, the setting out garv''*'^' 
 of the sections of the Lands Clauses Act at length in a matter. 
 petition is unnecessary and improper {Re Manchester §• 
 Leeds Railway Company, ex parte Osbaldiston, 8 Hare, 
 31) ; and, in general, where additional expense has been 
 incurred by the setting out of unnecessary matter in the 
 petition, such expense will be made the subject of a re- 
 ference to the taxing master {Haire v. Levitt, 12 L. T. 
 307 ; and see 40 Cons. Ord. r. 9, as to costs of unne- 
 cessary matter generally). It seems, however, that 
 the introduction into a petition of clauses in special 
 railway Acts, of which, being public Acts, the Court 
 is bound to take judicial cognizance, is not necessarily 
 impertinent {Re Lilley's Trusts, 17 Sim. 110). 
 
 Where the purchase-money sought to be invested ex- where 
 ceeds the sum paid ia, the Court will take care that the ^'^Jng^^' 
 costs of the company are not increased by that circum- exceeds 
 
206 COSTS TJNDEE PAETICULAR ACTS. 
 
 sum paid stance {Re Branmer's Estate, 14 Jur. 236 ; followed in 
 into Court. -^^ Loveband's Settled Estates, E. 9 W. R. 12, 30 L. J., 
 ct. 94 ; overruling, it would seem. Ex parte Lord Palmers- 
 ton, 4 Rly. Ca. 57 ; and Ex parte Vicar of Clarborough, 
 12 Jur. 239; see also Ex parte Hodge, 16 Sim. 159; Ex 
 parte Tetley, 4 Rly. Ca. 55 ; Ex parte Kingh College, 5 
 JDe G. 8f Sm. 621 ; and Ex parte Newton, 4 F. §• Coll. 
 (Exch.) 518. In Ex parte Mayor, 8fc. of Carlisle, 1 fV. R. 
 103 ; 20 L. T. 166 ; in which all costs, except the stamp 
 duty, were ordered to be paid by the company, the order 
 was made by consent. As to the form of an order under 
 the section, see ante, p. 191, note, and Seton on Decrees, 
 there cited. It was said by V. C. Kindersley, in Ex parte 
 Eton College, Re Ipswich, §• Bury St. Edmunds Railway 
 Company, 7 W. R. 1\0, that the company were entitled 
 to have the words ' upon the approval and execution of 
 the conveyance ' inserted in the order. See, however, 
 cases as to abortive investments cited, post, p. 208. 
 Costs of The costs of an interim investment in stock willbe allowed 
 
 vestments " ^g3,inst the Company (i?e Liverpool, ^c. Railway Company, 
 17 Beav. 322 ; and see Reading v. Hamilton, 5 L. T. n. s. 
 628, where the money, having been invested in stock, the 
 company had to pay the costs of a subsequent order to 
 sell the stock, and invest in mortgage. (Comp. Ex parte 
 Bishop of Durham, Z Y. ^ Coll. {Exch.) 690; Ex parte 
 Eton College, 15 Jur. 45 ; Ex parte Onslow, I Y. 8f Coll. 
 {Exch.) 553. These cases, however, seem scarcely recon- 
 cilable with Ex parte Taylor, I Y. Sf Coll. (Exch.) 229 ; 
 and Ex parte Hirst, 4 K ^ Coll. {Exch.) 468, where it 
 was decided that the words ' costs in consequence of the 
 purchase,' in an Act of Parliament, did not carry the 
 costs of an interim investment ; and comp. Re Gould, 
 24 Beav. 442, where the words in the Act were ' the 
 expenses of all purchases, from time to time, to be made 
 in pursuance of the Act ; ' and it was held that the costs 
 of an interim investment were not payable by the company. 
 Costs of The Court will always take care that the company are 
 
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 207 
 
 not saddled with the costs of a second unnecessary appli- several 
 Q&\\on{Re London, Brighton,^- South Coast Railway Com- P^''''°°^- 
 pany, 18 Beav. 608, 612, where the Master of the Rolls 
 reqiiii-ed an affidavit to be filed explaining and justifying 
 the presentation of a second petition). See, too. Ex parte 
 Jolliffe, 3 Jur. n. s. 633 ; Re Byrom's Trusts, 5 Jur. n. s. 
 261. In Re Goe's Trusts, 3 W. R. 129, where a sec*id 
 petition was rendered necessary by a defect in the order 
 in the first petition, the company were ordered to pay the 
 costs of the second petition. "V'NTiere a fresh petition is 
 rendered necessary by the laches, both of the petitioner 
 and the company, in not taking care that a former order 
 was properly drawn up, each party will be left to pay 
 their own costs (^Ex parte the Governors of Askham §• 
 Uppingham Grammar Schools, 23 L. T. 521). 
 
 With regard to the costs of several investments in land Costs of 
 the 80th section of the Lands Clauses Act contains the invest 
 
 following provisions : — • ments in 
 
 ' Provided always, that the costs of one application only 
 for reinvestment in land shall be allowed, unless it shall 
 appear to the Court of Chancery in England or the Court 
 of Exchequer in Ireland, that it is for the benefit of the 
 parties interested in the said monies that the same should 
 be invested in the purchase of lands in different sums and 
 at different times, in which case it shall be lawful for the 
 Court, if it think fit, to order the costs of any such invest- 
 ments to be paid by the promoters of the undertaking.' 
 
 ^ATiere the purchase-money paid in was large, the costs 
 of three investments were allowed (^Re St. Catherine's 
 Dock Company, 3 Rly. Ca. 514, and see p. 513). So, 
 in Re Trustees of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, 4 Drew. 
 425, where the third reinvestment was of a very small 
 sum ; and comp. Ex parte Eton College, 3 Rly. Ca. 271 ; 
 but see p. 272 ; Brandon v. Brandon, 9 Jur. n. s. 11 ; Ex 
 parte Bouverie, 4 Rly. Ca. 299 ; Ex parte Trustees of 
 Boxmoor, 3 Rly. Ca. 513; Ex parte Woolley, 17 Jur. 
 850 ; and Jones v. Lewis, 2 M. i^ G.IQ^; and Re Mer- 
 
208 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAR ACTS. 
 
 chant Tailors^ Company, 10 Beav. 485, decided, under 
 special Acts, from which it would seem that the costs of 
 more than one investment will always be allowed if it can 
 be shown to be ' for the benefit of the parties interested ' 
 (see, too. Re Trustees of St. Bartholomew'' s Hospital, 
 cited above). In Ex parte Rector of Soughton, 3 Rly. Ca. 
 59% it was held that the fact of a second investment being 
 for £Q only would not prevent the Court from making the 
 company pay the costs thereof, See, too, Brandon v. 
 Brandon, Re South Eastern Railway Company's Act, 11 
 TV. R. 63 ; Ex parte The Fishmongers' Company, 1 
 N. R. 85, 
 Where g^^ j^q costs of an abortive enquiry or attempt to sell 
 
 investment . . s. j c 
 
 not carried Will not necessardy fall on the Company {^Ex parte Copley, 
 °"'- 4 Jur. n. s. 297 ; Re MacdonaWs Will, 2 L. T. n. s. 168 ; 
 
 Ex parte Stevens, 15 Jur. 243); see, too. Re Har'dy's 
 Estate, 18 Jur. 370, where, on a petition for investment, 
 which was not approved by the Court, the company 
 received their costs out of the fund, but no order was 
 made as to the petitioner's costs. 
 
 In other cases, however, it has been held that the costs 
 of a bond fide attempt at investment which fails, are pay- 
 able by the company (J?e Woollefs Estate, 17 Jur. 850 ; 
 s. c. I TF. R. 4:01 , 465 ; Re North Staffordshire Railway 
 Act, Re Vawdrey, 3 Giff. 224, where the title had been 
 reported good, but the contract was afterwards rescinded 
 in consequence of the expense of making a, good title). 
 Ss. 81, 82. The 81st section of Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 
 provides that lands to be purchased under the provisions 
 of that or any special Act or any Act incorporated there- 
 with may be in the forms specified in the schedules and 
 that such conveyance shall have the effect of vesting the 
 land in the undertakers, of merging attendant terms, and 
 of barring estates tail. With respect to the costs of such 
 Costs of conveyance, the 82nd section provides that ' the costs of 
 ancl'title, ^^^ ^^"^^ conveyances shall be borne by the promote'rs of 
 &c. ' the undertaking, and such costs shall include all charges 
 
LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT. 209 
 
 and expenses incurred, on the part as well of the seller as 
 of the purchaser, of all conveyances and assurances of 
 any such lands, and of any outstanding terms or interests 
 therein, and of deducing, evidencing, and verifying the 
 title to such lands, terms, or interests, and of making out 
 and furnishing such abstracts and attested copies as the 
 promoters of the undertaking may require, and all other 
 reasonable expenses iucident to the investigation, deduc- 
 tion, and verification of such title.' Under this section all 
 vendor's costs of making out the title and of the convey- 
 ance are payable by the company {Re Spooner's Estate, 1 
 K. §• J. 220 ; Ex parte Marquis of Bath, 4 Rly. Ca. 
 567 ; and see Ex parte Trustees of Addie's Charity, 3 
 Hare, 22, under a special Act). 
 
 The costs of a conveyance prepared but not used by Costs of 
 reason of incumbrancers refusing to join were in Re ^^l^^ 
 Diver s Estate, 1 Jur. n. s. 995, held to be payable by the ance. 
 company. 
 
 Where there is a bargain between the ground landlord 
 of houses let at a gross ground-rent, and a railway com- 
 pany who have taken some of the houses, for the payment 
 of compensation at so many years' purchase on the rents 
 of the houses taken, the costs of apportioning the ground 
 rents between the houses taken and those left are not 
 payable by the company under this section (Re Hampstead 
 Junction Railway ; Ex parte Buck, \ H. ^ M. 519). 
 
 The costs incurred in investigating the title of land Costs in- 
 before the Conveyanciag Counsel of the Court are within ^^^.g 
 sections 82 and 83 of the Act, and as they are liable to conyey- 
 taxation the company have, under section 83, a right to couSel. 
 require a proper bill thereof to be delivered to them {Re 
 Spooner's Estate, 1 K. Sf J. 220). "Where an estate was 
 purchased with the monies arising from the sale of lands 
 taken by a corporation under the compulsory powers of 
 their Act, the costs of laying the abstract of title before 
 the purchaser's counsel, as well as before the counsel of 
 the Court, were allowed as against the corporation {Re 
 
 p 
 
210 COSTS UNDER PARTICDLAE ACTS. 
 
 Jones's Settled Estates, 4 Jur. n. s. 887). But the Lords 
 Justices, on appeal (27 L. J. ch. 706 ; 6 W. R. 762), 
 refused to allow the whole costs of the private counsel ; 
 though they thought that some allowance should be made 
 towards such costs. 
 
 Ss. 81, 82. The cases as to the costs of suits and other proceedings 
 rendered necessary by the death of the vendor leaving an 
 infant heir or devising the lands sold to an infant have 
 been already considered, aw^e, pp. 192, 193, note. 
 
 S. 83. The 83rd section provides that ' if the promoters of the 
 
 undertaking and the party entitled to any such costs shall 
 not agree as to the amount thereof (see Re Rhodes, 8 
 Beav. 224 ; Lake v. Eastern Counties Railway Company, 
 19 i. T. 323), ' such costs shall be taxed by one of the 
 taxing masters of the Court of Chancery, or by a Master 
 in Chancery in Ireland, upon an order of the same Court, 
 to be obtained upon petition in a summary way by 
 either of the parties ; and the promoters of the under- 
 taking shall pay what the said Master shall certify to 
 be due in respect of such costs to the party entitled 
 thereto, or in default thereof, the same may be recovered 
 in the same way as any other costs payable under an 
 order of the said Court, or the same may be recovered 
 by distress in the manner herein-before provided in 
 other cases of costs; and the expense of taxing such 
 costs shall be borne by the promoters of the under- 
 taking, unless upon such taxation one-sixth part of the 
 amount of such costs shall be disallowed, in which case 
 the costs of such taxation shall be borne by the party 
 whose costs shall be so taxed, and the amount thereof 
 shall be ascertained by the said Master and deducted by 
 him accordingly in his certificate of such taxation.' See 
 Re Spooner's Estate, I K. §■ J. 220, cited ante, p. 209 ; and 
 as to taxation and costs of taxation, see post, ch. viii. 
 
 Lien for The deposit, which, under the 85th section of the Act, 
 
 depos™ *^^ company are required to make before entering on 
 any land, is not subject to any lien for the costs of the 
 
COSTS UNDER TRUSTEE RELIEF ACT. 211 
 
 vendor ; but upon due performance of the condition of 
 the bond mentioned in the same section, the company are 
 entitled to have the money paid out to them, notwith- 
 standing the pendency of a question between them and 
 the vendor with respect to such costs {Re The London 
 &: South-Western Railway Extension Act; Ex parte 
 Stevens, 2 Phil. 172 ; see, too, Ex parte Great Northern 
 Railway Company, 12 Jur. 885, 16 Sim. 169). 
 
 Section II. — Costs under Trustee Relief Act. 
 
 By the 10 & 11 Vict. c. 96 (usually called the Trustee lo & n 
 EeKef Act) all trustees, executors, administrators, or other ^^''*' ''' ^^' 
 persons having in their hands any monies belonging to 
 any trusts whatsoever, or the major part of them, are 
 empowered to pay the same iato the Bank to the account 
 of the Accountant-General of the Court of Chancery, in 
 the matter of the particular trusts, and all trustees or 
 other persons having any annuities or stocks standing in 
 their name in the books of the Governor and Company 
 of the Bank of England, or of the East India Company, 
 or South Sea Company, or any Government or Parlia- 
 mentary securities standing in their names, or in the 
 names of any deceased persons of whom they shall be 
 personal representatives, upon any trusts whatsoever, or 
 the major part of them, are empowered to transfer or 
 deposit such stocks or securities into or in the name of the 
 Accountant- General, in the matter of the particular trust, 
 in trust to attend the orders of the Court. 
 
 The 2nd Section of the Act empowers the Court of 
 Chancery to make such orders as it shall think fit in re- 
 spect of the trust monies, stocks, or securities so paid in, 
 transferred, and deposited as aforesaid, and for the invest- 
 ment and payment of any such monies, or of any divi- 
 dends or interest on any such stocks or securities, and 
 
 p 2 
 
212 COSTS UNDER PAUTICULAE ACTS. 
 
 for transfer and delivery out of any such stocks and secu- 
 rities, and for the administration of any such trusts gene- 
 rally, upon a petition to be presented in a summary way 
 to the Lord Chancellor or the Master of the EoUs, without 
 bill, by such party or parties as to the Court shall appear 
 to be competent and necessary in that behalf, and service 
 of such petition shall be made upon such person or persons 
 as the Court shall see fit and direct. The trustees must 
 be served with the petition (41st Cons. Ord. r. 6). 
 Old rule as In the older cases it seems to have been thought that 
 trustee a trustee was always justified in paying money in his hands 
 paying, into Court under this Act, and that he ought in all 
 
 money into i n n n • r • ■ ■ 
 
 Court. cases to be allowed his costs oi appearmg on a petition to 
 
 have it paid out again (see Re Croyden^s Trusts, 14 Jur. 
 
 54; Mitchell -v. Cobb, 17 L. T. 25). 
 
 Trustee But though as a general rule such costs will be allowed 
 
 tiousiy (-^^ Erskine's Trusts, IK. Sf J. 302), it is now settled 
 
 paying that a trustee vexatiously paying money into Court under 
 
 into Court the Act will not be allowed any costs on a petition to 
 
 ™fa ^(i 1 • S®* ^* °^* *^S^™ ^^^ Heming's Trusts, Z K. ^ J. ^0; 
 
 costs of ap- Re CovingtorCs Will, 25 L. J. ch. 238), and may even 
 
 or OTdTred ^® Ordered to pay the costs of a petition to get the 
 
 to pay money out again (i?e JVoodburn's Trusts, 1 De G. §• J. 
 
 petition. 333 ; Re Cater's Trusts (No. 1), 25 Beav. 361 ; Re 
 
 But not to KnigMs Trusts, 27 Beav. 45). It is settled, however, 
 
 costs of that if the trustee deducts his costs of paying the 
 
 payment money into Court from the fund before doing so, the 
 
 Court has no jurisdiction to make any order as to these 
 
 costs {Re Bloye's Trusts, 1 Mac. §• G. 488, 504 ; Re 
 
 Leake's Trusts, 32 Beav. 135, 1 N. R. 417 ; Re Barber's 
 
 Trusts, 2 N. R. 571). But such costs are liable to 
 
 taxation {Re Hue's Trusts, 27 Beav. 337, sed quare). 
 
 What is a The question what constitutes ' vexatious conduct ' on 
 
 pI^enT^' *^® P^'^* °^ *^^ trustee so as to disentitle hun or render 
 
 into Court, him liable to costs is one of some difficulty. In Re 
 
 Heming's Trusts, 3 K. §• J. 40, it was held that a trustee 
 
 who pays an alleged balance into Court on the ground 
 
COSTS UNDER TRUSTEE RELIEF ACT. 213 
 
 that his cestui qvi trusts declined to sign an acquittance 
 in respect of all demands against him as trustee, was dis- 
 allowed his costs. In Re IVoodburn's Trusts, 1 De G. §■ 
 J. 333, the fact that the trustee had paid the money into 
 Court without waiting for evidence of title, which the 
 cestui qui trusts were engaged in procuring, and without 
 stating what eyidence he should require, was held a ground 
 for making him pay costs. The same order was made 
 in Re Cater^s Trusts (No. 1), 25 Beav. 361, where the 
 ground of paying the money in was an alleged refusal, on 
 the part of the other trustees to whom the fund was pay- 
 able, to join a release by deed ; in Re Folignd's Mortgage, 
 32 Beav. 131, where the money was paid in by mort- 
 gagees who had sold under their power, and who refused 
 to pay over the surplus monies to a person to whom the 
 mortgagor had assigned his interest by way of indemnity, 
 with power to sell and give receipts, unless the mortgagor 
 concurred and executed a release to them ; and in Re 
 Knighfs Trusts, 27 Beav. 45, where the trustee, before 
 paying the money in, neglected to make any enquiries 
 as to whether the persons entitled were ahve or dead. 
 
 A trustee who insists upon the petition being served Trustee 
 upon unnecessary parties, will be disallowed his costs {Re ^^ ^^. 
 
 Metcalfe, 3 N. R. 657). necessaj'y 
 
 1 ■ r~{ TiA service. 
 
 A trustee who pays money mto Court under the Act Trustee 
 in order to prevent a bill from being filed against him, ^^^g|J° 
 will be disallowed his costs (i?e Waring, 2\ L. J. ch. 784 ; avoid a 
 Re Fagg, 19 L. J. ch. 175). against 
 
 On the other hand, where a trustee, having bond fide tim.^^ 
 doubts as to the persons entitled to the money in his trustee's 
 hands, pays it into Court, the Court will allow him his ''°T^f^^^_ 
 costs {Re Wylley's Trusts, 28 Beav. 458). Thus, a 
 trustee of a fund subject to a power of appointment, 
 has, of course, a right to satisfactory evidence that no 
 appointment has been made before paying the money to 
 the persons entitled in default {ibid.). And, in general, a 
 trustee who pays the money into Court because, being in 
 
214 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAR ACTS. 
 
 failing health, or of advanced years, he wishes to be dis- 
 charged {ibid.), or because he wishes to avoid being asso- 
 ciated with a new trustee to whose appointment he objects 
 {Re Williams' Trusts, Q W. R. 218), will be allowed his 
 costs. So when a married woman, entitled to a legacy, 
 and her husband were abroad, and the executor declined 
 to pay the legacy under a power of attorney, and paid it 
 into Court, he was held to be justified in so doing, and 
 was allowed his costs of paying it in, and of appearing on 
 the petition to have it paid out {Re Jones, 3 Drew. 679). 
 A fortiori, a trustee is justified in paying his money into 
 Court when he has received actual notice of diflTerent 
 claims thereon {Re HeadingtorH s Trusts, 27 L. J. eh. 175 ; 
 s. c. 6 W. R. 7), and he is not bound to decide as to the 
 validity of such claims {ibid.). And, where a husband 
 wished to have a sum of money which was in the hands of 
 a trustee for his wife, settled, and a settlement was ac- 
 cordingly prepared, but disputes arose respecting it, and 
 it was not executed, and the husband and wife required 
 the trustee to pay the money to them, it was held that the 
 trustee was justified in paying the money into Court 
 instead, and that he was entitled to his costs (i?e Bendy she 
 3 Jur. n. s. 727 ; s. c. 5 W. R. 816). Again, in Re 
 Brocklesby, 29 Beav. 652, the Master of the Rolls refused 
 to make trustees, who had paid into Court the ascertained 
 share of a residue belonging to a married xoman, pay any 
 costs, observing, that except on a petition there could be 
 no affidavit of a settlement, which the Court always re- 
 quired. So it has been held, that where the person 
 entitled claims by representation, the trustees will be 
 allowed their costs, as the possibility of a disposition by 
 the deceased person is not excluded {Re Lane's Trusts, 
 24 L. T. 181). 
 
 Where a fund belonging to a married woman was paid 
 into Court under the Trustee Relief Act, in order that 
 she might have the benefit of a settlement, the trustees 
 were allowed their costs, notwithstanding repeated expres- 
 
COSTS UNDEE TRUSTEE RELIEF ACT. 215 
 
 sions by her that she did not desire a settlement {Re Swan's 
 Settlement, 4 N. R. 53, 12 W. R. 738). 
 
 In a case before V. C. Wood {Re Eyre, 3rd July, 1858, Where 
 not reported on this point), that learned Judge expressed "1^^°^^ 
 an opinion that wherever the fund was settled on one ^''^'^ly 
 person for life and others ia remainder, the trustee had 
 a right to pay the money into Court. See, however. Re 
 Leake's Trusts, 32 Beav. 135, where trustees who, having 
 accepted a trust of this nature, had, without the occur- 
 rence of any change in the nature of the trust, paid 
 the money into Court under this Act, were disallowed 
 their costs of appearance on a petition for payment of the 
 dividends to the tenant for life. 
 
 The fact that trustees have, under a misapprehension, Wiere 
 
 paid a fund to an account wrongly entitled, is no ground ^"^"^ 
 
 for depriving them of their costs {Re Jenkins's Trusts, wrong 
 
 ,^ J^ f ^ ' account. 
 
 3 N. R. 408). 
 
 "\Yhere a creditor of a party interested in a fund in Costs of 
 Court under the Act presents a petition for a stop order ^^^^^^ f°r 
 and serves the trustees, he must pay the costs {Re Blunfs stop order. 
 Trusts, 10 W. R. 379). 
 
 The costs allowed to a trustee will not include the What costs 
 costs of copies of affidavits of persons claiming beneficial |^j,,^^g^es ° 
 interests {Re Lazarus, 2 K. ^ J. 555). And where a Trustees 
 petition was presented by the trustees without the consent petitioning 
 of the beneficiaries, and no cause was shown for their allowed re- 
 moving in the matter, the Court allowed them only ^P°[g ®"* ^ 
 respondent's costs {Re Cazneau's Legacy, 2 K. ^ J. 249 ; 
 Re Hutchinson's Trusts, 1 Dreio. §• Sm. 27. See, how- 
 ever. Re Trowers' Trusts, 1 L. T. n. s. 54). 
 
 It was said by V. C. Wood, in Mountain v. Young, 18 Where 
 Jur. 770, that trustees are always justified in not paying dedints or 
 money into Court, as it may turn out that there was no omits to 
 
 1 1 • -ir 1 P^y money 
 
 occasion for doing so. In a later case, the plamtins, who into Court. 
 were entitled to the investment of a pecuniary legacy, 
 had by letter requested the defendants, their trustees, one 
 of whom was also the residuary legatee, to pay the legacy 
 
216 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAR ACTS. 
 
 into Court under this Act, but the trustees declined to do 
 so, and stated that they had invested the money as 
 directed by the will, and that they did not wish to divest 
 themselves of the trusts. The trustees by their answer 
 objected to pay the money into Court, but at the bar 
 admitted the plaintiffs' right to have it so paid in. It 
 was held by V. C. Stuart that the costs of the suit, 
 which might have been rendered unnecessary by payment 
 of the money into Court under the Act, must be borne by 
 the residuary fund to which one of the trustees was 
 entitled {Handley v. Davies, 28 L. J. ch. 873). But 
 where a trustee, who has money in his hands and might 
 have discharged himself by paying it into Court under 
 the Act, chooses to file a bill to administer the fund, he 
 will only be allowed the costs to which he would have 
 been entitled if he had paid it in under the Act ( Wells y. 
 Malbon, 31 Beav. 48). 
 Costs of re- The general rule is that all persons mentioned in the 
 spon en . ^j-^g^gg'g aflSdavit must be served. But the parties served, 
 if they claim no interest, ought not to appear ; and, if 
 they do, will not be allowed their costs (.Be Smith, 3 Jur. 
 n. s. 659; Day v. Croft, 19 Beav. 518; and Re BircKs 
 Legacy, 2 K. §• J. 369 ; and under another Act, Re 
 Justices of Coventry, 19 Beav. 158 ; but see contra. Ex 
 parte Qiieen^s College, 6 fF. R. 9, where V. C. Stuart held 
 that the case differed from that of parties to a cause 
 served with a petition). So incumbrancers appearing 
 upon a petition by a prior incumbrancer, whose debt ex- 
 hausted the fund iu Court, in spite of a notice by the 
 petitioner's solicitor, that, if they appeared, the payment 
 of their costs would be resisted, were held disentitled to 
 costs {Roberts v. Ball, 24 L. J. ch. 471). And a party, 
 who, although not mentioned in the affidavit, makes a 
 claim, in consequence of which he is served, but which 
 he afterwards at the hearing of the petition withdraws, 
 will not be allowed his costs {Re Parry, 12 Jur, 615). 
 Out of The costs of paying the money into Court, as a general 
 
COSTS UNDER TETJSTEE BELIEF ACT. 217 
 
 rule, ought to be deducted out of the general trust estate, ^^^^ 
 if there be one {Be Caicthorne, 12 Beav. 56 ; Re Jones, Costs of 
 3 Drew. 679). But if there be no general residue, or if P^y™s . 
 
 _ ' _ o ' monoy ID. 
 
 the fund paid in has been completely ' severed therefrom 
 and appropriated,' they must come out of the fund itself 
 {Re Larimer, 12 Beav. 521). Such costs, if not deducted, 
 will be ordered to be paid out of the corpus of the fund 
 {Re Sayers, Seton on Decrees, 773, 3rd edition). 
 
 In Re Bartholomeio's Will, 13 Jur. 380, it was held. Costs of 
 that where a particular legacy had been paid out of the payment' 
 general estate, the Court had no jurisdiction to order the °^'- 
 costs of a petition for payment of the money out of Court 
 to come out of the testator's general estate (see Re Caw- 
 thorne, 12 Beav. 56 ; Re Dickson's Trusts, 1 Sim. n. s. 
 47; Re Ross's Trusts, 1 Sim. n. s. 196; Re Feltham's 
 Trusts, I K. 8c J. 528, 534 ; Re Hodgson's Will, 18 Jur. 
 786 ; Re Jones, 3 Drew. 679 ; Re Robertson's Trusts, 6 
 W. R. 405). But leave may be given to file a biU, which 
 would have the effect of throwing such costs upon the 
 general estate {Re Sharpe, 15 Sim. 470, 472. See, too. 
 Re Feltham's Trusts, I K. 8f J. 533, 534). In the latter 
 case the costs of the executors who had paid the fund 
 into Court were ordered to come out of the general 
 residue. 
 
 Where a sum of stock representing sixteen shares in a 
 legacy, five of which were held to have lapsed, was trans- 
 ferred into Court, Lord Cranworth, V. C, held that the 
 lapsed shares ought to bear the costs of the petitioners 
 and respondents {Re Ham's Trust, 2 Sim. n. s. 106). 
 
 Where a feme covert appeared on a petition for distribu- 
 tion of a fund in Court under this Act, and together 
 with her husband opposed the distribution, the Court 
 ordered a part of the fund to which she was entitled for 
 her special use to be applied in payment of the costs of 
 such opposition {Newton v. Ricketts, 9 H. L. Ca. 373 ; 
 affirming Re Ricketts, I J. 8^ H. 70). 
 
 In Mutlow V. Mutlow, 4: De G. 8f J. 539, a fund paid 
 
218 
 
 COSTS UNDEE PAETICULAR ACTS. 
 
 Whether 
 costs pay- 
 able out 
 of corpus 
 or income. 
 
 Costs of 
 second pe- 
 tition. 
 
 into Court under the Trustee Eelief Act was ordered 
 to bear the costs of a suit which had been instituted to 
 administer the estate of which it formed part. 
 
 Where a fund, in which successive beneficial interests 
 exist, is paid into Court, the costs of the petition to get it 
 out again ought to come out of the corpus of the fund 
 {Re Staples, 13 Jur. 273). But where a tenant for life 
 petitions for payment of the income to himself, the costs 
 of the petitioner, at least, ought to be borne by the income 
 (i?e Lorimer, 12 Beav. 521 ; Ex parte Peart, 17 L. J. 
 ch. 168 ; Ex parte Fletcher, \1 L. J. oh. \Q2 ; Re Bang- 
 ley's Trusts, 21 L. J. ch. 875; Re IngrarrCs Trusts, 18 
 Jur. 811 ; Re Hadland^s Settlement, 23 Beav. 266; Re 
 Hammer sley's Settlement, 23 Beav. 267 ; comp. Re Parly, 
 29 L. T. 72 ; see contra, Re Ross's Trust, 1 Sim. n. s. 196 ; 
 but comp. report in 15 Jur. 241 ; Re Field, 16 Beav. 
 146 ; Re Butler's Trusts, 16 Jur. 324). The costs of the 
 respondents, however, in such a case may be ordered to 
 come out of the corpus {Re Hadland's Settlement, 23 
 Beav. 266). See, too. Re Whitling's Settlement, 9 W. R. 
 830, where, however, V. C. Wood seems to have thought 
 that in such a case remaindermen need not be served. 
 In Re Tchitchagoff's Will, 12 fF. R. 1100, the costs of 
 the trustee only were ordered to be paid out of the corpus, 
 the other costs being thrown on the income. In a late 
 case, however, the costs of all parties to a petition for 
 payment of the income to the tenant for life were 
 ordered to come out of the corpus {Re Leake's Trusts, 32 
 Beav. 135 ; see, too, Eady v. Watson, 12 W. R. &S2). 
 
 Where two petitions are bond fide separately prepared 
 for obtaining payment out of Court of a sum paid in 
 under the Trustee Relief Act, and both raise the same 
 issue, the Court will in general allow the costs of the 
 preparation of the second petition ; but where solicitors 
 had been informed that a petition was presented, and they 
 persisted in presenting another for the same object, the 
 costs of the preparation and presentation of the second 
 
COSTS UNDER TRUSTEE ACTS, 1850-2. 219 
 
 petition were disallowed (Re Chaplin's Trusts (2), 3 N. 
 R. 289, 33 L. J. ch. 183). 
 
 An important decision of the Lords Justices {Re Arm- Costs pay- 
 ston's Trusts, 4 N. R. 450, 10 Jur. n. s. 715) has recently de- f o^afX" 
 termined that the Court has power to order the costs of an 
 application for payment of monies paid into Court under 
 this Act to be paid by a respondent whose unsuccessful claim 
 was the cause of the payment into Court. In this case, Lord 
 Justice Turner observed that the silence of the Trustee 
 Relief Act upon the subject of costs was to be accounted 
 for by the fact that the funds were paid into Court in 
 trust to attend the orders of the Court, thereby subjecting 
 the matter to the general jurisdiction of the Court ; the 
 case, therefore, must be dealt with as if a bill of inter- 
 pleader had been filed by the trustees, as stakeholders, 
 in which case the unsuccessful claimant would of course 
 have to pay the costs. See ante, p. 152. 
 
 Section IIL — Costs binder the Trustee Acts, 1850-2. 
 
 By the 51st Section of the Trustee Act, 1850, it is Trustee 
 enacted that 'the Lord Chancellor, intrusted as aforesaid ' ^^^\_ ' 
 (i. e. intrusted by virtue of the Queen's sign-manual with 
 the care of the persons and estates of lunatics), ' and the 
 Court of Chancery may order the costs and expenses of 
 and relating to the petitions, orders, directions, convey- 
 ances, assignments and transfers to be made in pursuance 
 of this Act, or any of them, to be paid and raised out of 
 or from the lands or personal estate, or the rents or pro- 
 duce thereof, in respect of which the same respectively 
 shall be made, or in such manner as the said Lord Chan- 
 cellor or Court shall think proper.' In IJx parte Davies, 
 16 Jur. 882, V. C. Parker, upon appointing a new trus- 
 tee and making a vesting order under the 32nd and 34th 
 sections of the Act, by consent ordered the new trustee to 
 
220 
 
 COSTS UNDEK PARTICULAR ACTS. 
 
 Costs of 
 application 
 occasioned 
 by iTinacy, 
 &c. of 
 trustee to 
 be borne by 
 trust estate 
 generally. 
 
 Apportion- 
 ment of 
 costs. 
 
 Costs of 
 trustees. 
 
 Trustee 
 cannot be 
 made to 
 pay costs. 
 
 pay the costs of the proceedings, and directed that such 
 costs, with interest thereon at £4 per cent., should form a 
 charge on the inheritance. 
 
 As a general rule the costs of an application under this 
 Act, whether occasioned by the lunacy {Re Fulham, 15 
 Jur. 69 ; Ex parte Pearse, T. ^ R. 325 ; and see He 
 Lewes, cited infra, p. 222), infancy {Ex parte Cant, 10 Ves. 
 554), or bankruptcy {Ex parte Painter, 2 Deac. §• Ch. 
 584), of a trustee, must be borne by the trust estate or the 
 cestui qui trust. As a general rule the costs of such 
 applications, being applications for the benefit of the 
 estate generally, will be ordered to be borne by the 
 estate generally {Re Parhy, 29 L. T. 72 ; Re Fulham, 
 15 Jur. 69 ; Re Fellows' Settlement, 2 Jur. n. s. 62; and 
 see ante, p. 218). Where new trustees of copyholds 
 were appointed, the fines payable on the admission of 
 the new trustees were ordered to be borne by the tenant 
 for life and remaindermen in proportion to their respec- 
 tive interests ( Carter v. Sebright, 26 Beav. 374). On 
 a petition to appoint new trustees of two trust funds of 
 different amounts, the costs were ordered to be paid 
 rateably {Re Grant's Trusts, 2 J. Sf H. 764). 
 
 The costs of trustees served and appearing on a peti- 
 tion to appoint new trustees under the Act will generally 
 be allowed as between solicitor and client (see Turner v. 
 Molyneux, 3 L. T. n. s. 687, where a bankrupt trustee 
 was allowed his costs as between solicitor and client). But 
 where a trustee, on a petition to appoint new trustees, dis- 
 claimed at the bar, the Court only allowed him party and 
 party costs {Bulkeley v. Earl of Eglinton, 1 Jur. n. s. 994 ; 
 see Norway v. Norway, 2M. 8f K. 278). 
 
 The Court has no jurisdiction to make a respondent 
 trustee pay the costs of an application under the Act 
 rendered necessary by his misconduct {Re Primrose, 23 
 Beav. 590). But on the other hand it may dismiss a 
 petition with costs (Section 42) ; and the Court may order 
 any of the parties to any suit concerning any lands or con- 
 
COSTS UNDER TRUSTEE ACTS, 1850-2. 221 
 
 tingent right as to which an order has been made under 
 the Act, to pay any costs occasioned by the order under 
 the Act, when the same shall appear to have been im- 
 properly obtained (Section 44). 
 
 Where a petition is rendered necessary by the fact that Costs 
 the mortgagee's representative is an infant {Ex parte ^y infancy 
 Ommaney, 10 Sim. 298), or cannot be found {King v. &e. of 
 Smith, 6 Hare, 473), the costs are payable by the mort- ^°^ ^*^'"'" 
 gagor. 
 
 The practice as to the costs of a petition under the Bylnnacy 
 Act rendered necessary by the lunacy of a mortgagee gagee. 
 appears to be somewhat unsettled. In Re Jones, 2 De 
 G. F. 1^' J. 554, where a petition was presented by the 
 mortgagor for a reconveyance or vesting order, the legal 
 estate being outstanding in the lunatic heir of the mort- 
 gagee, the costs were ordered to be paid by the mortgagor 
 (comp. Re Marrow, Cr. §• Ph. 142 ; Re Stuart, 4 De 
 G. 8f J. 317; and Ex parte Clay, cited in ' Shelford on 
 Lunatics,' ed. 1847, p. 510, there cited; but see contra, 
 under the former Act, Ex parte Richards, I J. ^ W. 264 ; 
 Re Townsend, 2 Ph. 348). T\Tiere, however, the petition 
 is presented by the committee or other person represent- 
 ing the lunatic, the costs will be ordered to come out of 
 the lunatic's estate (See Re Wheeler, 1 De G. M. §• G. 
 435 ; Re Riddle, 23 L. J. Ch. 435 ; Re Rowley'' s Legacy, 1 
 N. R. 251 ; Re Thomas, 22 L. J. ch. 858. In the latter 
 case the cost of the stamp imposed by the 15 & 16 Vict, 
 c. 55 (the Trustee Act, 1852) was ordered to be borne 
 by the mortgagor. In Re Viall, Hawkins v. Perry, 8 De 
 G. M. §• G. 439, the petition was presented by a purchaser 
 under a decree for the administration of the mortgagor's 
 estate for an order vesting in him the legal estate out- 
 standing in a lunatic mortgagee, and a portion of the 
 costs were ordered to be paid out of the mortgage money. 
 
 Where it clearly appeared from the mortgage deed that Where the 
 the lunatic was only a trustee (see Re Fulham, cited ante, i^a'traslee. 
 p. 220), the costs of obtaining a reconveyance under the 
 
222 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAR ACTS. 
 
 1 Will. IV. c. 60, the older Act, were directed to be borne 
 by the mortgagor (^Re Lewes, \M. 8fG. 23 ; but see report 
 of Be Townsend, I M. ^ G. 686). 
 In cases Where land is contracted to be sold, and the state of 
 
 vendor and the title is such that an application to the Court becomes 
 purchaser, necessary, the costs of the application must be borne by 
 the vendor (^Bradley v. Munton, 16 Beav. 294 ; Heard v. 
 Cuthbertf 1 Ir. Chanc. Rep. 369), even when, by the 
 contract, the costs of a surrender, in respect of which the 
 application had become necessary, were to be borne by 
 the purchaser {Bradley v. Munton, ante). The fact that 
 the sale is under the direction of the Court {Ayles v. Cox, 
 17 Beav. 584), or that a Railway Company are the pur- 
 chasers {Re South Wales Railway Company, 14 Beav. 
 418), makes no difference. Where the sale is in lots, the 
 costs should be paid out of the purchase-money of the 
 particular lot as to which the order is asked, and not out 
 of the fund in court generally {Ayles v. Cox, ubi supra). 
 Where suit Where a vendor dies intestate, leaving an infant heir, 
 necessary. ^.^^ ^ y^Q^ jg f^[Q^ iq make him a trustee under the Act, 
 each party will be ordered to pay his own costs {Scott v. 
 Scott, 11 W. R. 766 ; and see Purser v. Darby, 4. K. ^ J. 
 41 ; and the other cases cited, ante, p. 192, 193, note). 
 Costs Where a person, instead of proceeding under this Act 
 
 where ^q obtain the appointment of new trustees, filed a bill for 
 
 person '- ^ 
 
 proceeds that purpose, he was ordered to pay all the costs of the 
 i'nst^eidof suit (T/wmas v. Walker, 18 Beav. 521). 
 
 petition 
 
 under the 
 
 Act. 
 
 Section IV. — Costs under Special Case Act. 
 
 13 & u By the 13 & 14 Vict., c. 35, entitied ' An Act to 
 
 Vict. L-. 35. (Jiniinish the delay and expense of proceedings in the 
 
 High Court of Chancery in England ' (usually called Sir 
 
 George Turner's Act), persons interested, or claiming to be 
 
 interested, in certain questions cognizable in the Court are 
 
COSTS UNDEE SPECIAL CASE ACT. 223 
 
 empowered to concur in stating such questions in the 
 form of a special case for the opinion of the Court, and 
 the Court is empowered to determine the questions raised 
 therein, and by decree to declare its opinion thereon, and, 
 so far as the case admits, upon the rights iuvolved therein, 
 without admioisteriug any relief consequent on such 
 declaration. 
 
 By the 30th section, the Lord Chancellor, with the ,Ss. 30, 32, 
 advice and consent of the Master of the Rolls and any 
 one or more of the Vice-Chancellors, is empowered to 
 make general orders for effectuating the purposes of the 
 Act ; and (by Section 32) it is provided that until such 
 general orders are made (which has not been done) the 
 costs of all proceedings under the Act shall be in the dis- 
 cretion of the Court. 
 
 In the older cases it seems to have been thought that Whether 
 under this section the Court had power in all cases to special 
 direct the costs of a special case to be paid by a testator's '^^^^ v^7- 
 
 1 / -1-7 ^ -r T 1 '^'^1® °^* °f 
 
 general estate (see Jackson v. Craig, 20 L. .J. ch. 204 ; testator's 
 Smith V. Stuart, 20 L. J. ch. 205 ; Burt v. Sturt, 1 W. ^t''*^ 
 
 ^ ' ^ where no 
 
 R. 143 ; Evans v. Evans, 22 L. T. 43 ; and compare fund in 
 Cookson V. Bingham, 17 Beav. 262 ; Hindle v. Taylor, 5 
 De G. M. §• G. 594, 595). In Blinsten v. Warburton, 2 
 K. §• J. 406, however, it was said by V. C. Wood, that 
 where there was no fund in Court the Court had no juris- 
 diction to order the payment of costs of a special case, 
 and that in such a case there shoidd either be some 
 arrangement between the parties or a question in the case 
 out of what fund they should be paid. The latter course 
 is more generally adopted in practice. 
 
 As a general rule, the Court, in awarding the costs of General 
 a special case, is governed by the rules which regulate it ^gt/^f ° 
 in ordering payment of the costs of a suit instituted by special 
 bill. Thus, if the difficulty arise out of a testator's will, 
 the costs, as in an admiaistration suit, will be ordered to 
 be borne by the testator's general estate (^Cookson v. 
 Bingham, 17 Beav. 262; Hindle v. Taylor, 5 De G. 
 
224 COSTS UNDER PARTICULAK ACTS. 
 
 M. Sj- G. 585; but see Lloi/d v. Cocker, 27 Beav. 649); 
 or residuary real estate {Marshall v. Grime, 28 Beav. 
 379) ; or if there be no general estate by the fund 
 specifically bequeathed {Cookson v. Bingham, ante; but 
 see also, Lloyd v. Cocker, ante). 
 "^,^™ In Usticke V. Peters, 4 K. §•. J". 457, however, V. C. 
 
 COSTS 01 
 
 special Wood held that the costs of a special case were not to be 
 ordered to ■ "Iscided on the same principle as those of an administra- 
 te paid by tion suit, and that a plaintiff succeeding upon a special 
 ful party, ^ase arising out of the construction of a will was entitled 
 to his costs from the defendant, each party fairly claiming 
 what he thought himself entitled to ; and there being no 
 question of conduct involved. From the report of the 
 case, it does not appear that any question as to the costs 
 was inserted in the special case. So in Mortimer e v. 
 Mortimore, 4 De G. §• J. 472, a special case having been 
 stated for the opinion of the Court, at the instance of 
 a tenant for life, with a view to obtaining an increase of 
 her income by an investment, of which the Court in its 
 judgment expressed disapprobation, the income of the 
 tenant for life was ordered to bear the costs. Again, ia 
 Sahin v. Heape, 27 Beav. 561, the costs of a special case 
 were, in answer to a question in the case, declared to be 
 payable by the defendant, upon the principle that, if a 
 bill had been filed for specific performance, a decree 
 would have been made against him with costs. 
 
 Section V. — Costs under Winding-up and Joint Stock 
 Companies Act. 
 
 Winding- By the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 45 (the Winding-up Act, 
 
 up Act, 1848), (repealed by the ' Companies Act, 1862,' s. 205, 
 
 except as to Companies ordered to be wound up before 
 
 Ss. 103- the latter Act came into operation,) it was enacted, s. 103, 
 
 that the general costs of winding up the estate, and the 
 
 costs of proving debts, and of trying issues, and of all 
 
 106. 
 
COSTS UXDEE WINDING-UP, ETC. ACTS. 225 
 
 other matters in ivhich creditors or any particular con- 
 tributories or classes of contributories or alleged con- 
 tributories of the company should be interested, should 
 be at the discretion of the JNIaster (now the Judge in 
 Chambers), and shou.ld be paid either out of the general 
 estate of such company, or out of any portion of the 
 general estate, or should be debited or credited to any 
 individual contributories or classes of contributories, or 
 should be subject to such set-off as the Master should 
 from time to time direct.' Sect. 104 enacted that the 
 costs of all proceedings which should take place before 
 the Court should be in the discretion of the Court. All 
 costs were to be ascertained by the Master, or were to 
 be taxed, settled, and adjusted by such persons as he 
 should direct ; and the Taxing INIasters of the Court were 
 authorised and required to tax all such costs as the Master 
 should direct to be taxed by them, and to make their cer- 
 tificate of such taxation in the usual manner (Sect. 105). 
 Sect. 106 enacted that all costs ordered to be paid under 
 the Act should be recovered in the same manner and by • 
 
 the same or any such process as costs ordered to be paid 
 by any party under any order or decree made in a suit 
 pending in the Court. 
 
 It was said, in Ex parte Turner, 3 De G. 8f Sm. 127, Costs of 
 that the assets of a company ought not to be charged with p^tfyo^g 
 the costs of more than one petition for winding it up. ^^^^ ^^ 
 But see Be Commercial Discount Company/ (Limited), post, be thrown 
 
 Even though an order may be made for the winding up °k,nereven 
 of a company under this Act, the costs may ultimately ^lien 
 
 .. ,_ crj-ifir order made 
 
 be thrown upon the petitioner {-tx parte 6edffwick, 2. Jur. for wind- 
 «. *. 949).' _ "^S^P- 
 
 xVs a general rule the costs of an unsuccessful opposi- Costs of 
 tion to a petition for winding up, and of an enquiry and ™^'"pp''i;. 
 other intervening proceedings arising thereout, will be tion to 
 thrown upon the respondents who oppose {Be Bosworthon ^p" '"^ 
 Mining Company, 2& L. J. ch. 612). 
 
 By Sect. 59 of the same Act it was provided that the Costs of 
 
 Q 
 
226 
 
 COSTS UNDEK PAKTICULAK ACTS. 
 
 official 
 manager. 
 
 Where 
 
 official 
 
 manager 
 
 disallowed 
 
 or 
 
 ordered to 
 
 pay costs. 
 
 Wiere 
 order for 
 winding 
 up Yoid. 
 
 Costa of 
 creditors' 
 represen- 
 tative. 
 
 official manager should always be fully reimbursed and in- 
 demnified out of the assets of the company, or out of the 
 credits thereof, and, if necessary, by caU to be made on 
 the contributories for all losses, costs, charges, damages, 
 and expenses, without deduction, save and except such, if 
 any, losses, costs, charges, damages, and expenses as should 
 have been unduly or improperly sustained or incurred by 
 any such official manager. 
 
 It has been held that the Act gave the Court no cor- 
 responding power to order the costs of improperly sum- 
 moning persons as contributories to be paid by the official 
 manager {Ex parte Marsh, 1 Mac. §• G. 302 ; but see 
 Ex parte Woolmer, 2 De G. M. Sf G. 665, 22 L. J. oh. 
 513, where the costs of proceedings improperly taken in 
 the Master's office by the official manager were ordered to 
 be paid by him personally). So the costs of an improper 
 appeal {Ex parte Roberts, 1 Drew. 204, 215), or of a suit 
 improperly instituted {Official Manager of the Grand 
 Trunk Sfc. Railway/ Company v. Brodie, 3 De G. M. §• 
 G. 146), have been ordered to be paid by the official 
 manager personally. And where the official manager 
 neglected his duty, ex. gr. by not informing the Court of 
 existing clauns ( Clifton's Case, 5 De G. M. §• G. 743), 
 or by not keeping proper books {Ex parte A'Beckett, 2 
 Jur. n. s. 684), the Court refused him his costs. 
 
 As to the costs of the official manager where the order 
 for winding up is declared void, see Ex parte Harding, 
 Re Plumstead Waterworks Company {Limited), 1 N. R. 40; 
 11 W. R. 99. 
 
 The practice as to allowing the costs of the creditors' 
 representative out of the estate, in addition to those of the 
 official manager, has somewhat varied. The old practice 
 was to allow the creditors' representative his costs of 
 appearing before the Master in Chambers to settle the 
 list of contributories {Re Mexican §• South American 
 Mining Company, 26 Beav. 172 {No. I) ; s. c. on appeal, 
 6 W. R. 560 ; Orpen's Case, 11 JV. R. 741, 2 N. R. 225 ; 
 
COSTS UNDER WINDING-UP, ETC. ACTS. 227 
 
 Be Electric Telegraph Company of Ireland, Sudd's Case, 
 30 Beav. 143 ; but see the practice of allowing the cre- 
 ditors' representative his costs where he supports exactly 
 the same case as an official manager disapproved of, in Re 
 Phcenix Life Assurance Company, Hatton's Case, 10 
 W. R. 313; Hoare's Case, L. J. 381, and infra. So 
 where the sununons was adjourned into court. Re Saxon 
 Life Assurance Society, 2 J. 8f H. 408 ; Re Phcenix Life 
 Assurance Company, Rurges ig Stock's Case, 2 J. Sf H. 441. 
 And upon an appeal whether a particular person is a con- 
 tribiitory. Re Mexican &,• South American Mining Com- 
 pany, Aston s Case, 4 De G. ^' J. 324 ; HyanCs Case, 1 
 De G. F. i>; Ji 81 ; Re the Electric Telegraph of Ireland 
 Company, Buddy's Case, 10 W. i?. 51, where the costs of 
 the official manager were ordered to be paid by the party 
 appealing. See, too. Re London §• County Assurance 
 Company, Wood Sf Brown's Case, 10 W. R. 662, V. C. K. 
 But the rule as now laid down seems to be that the credi- 
 tors' representative will not be allowed his costs out of the 
 estate, except where the creditors have a distinct case from 
 the contributories (see Re National Assurance §• Invest- 
 ment Company, CottereWs Case, 1 iV". i?. 5, 11 W. R.2; 
 Be Era Insurance Company, 7 L. T. s. c. 595 ; s. c. 
 on appeal, 1 JV. R. 343, 11 W. R. 320). 
 
 In Re Mexican ^ South American Mining Company, 
 ex parte Costello, 9 W. R. 6, the costs of the creditors' 
 representative upon an unsuccessful appeal by a contribu- 
 tory were ordered to be paid by the contributory, in 
 addition to the costs of the official manager. 
 
 Where a creditor upon a joint stock company, without Costs in 
 notice of an iutention to wind up, brings an action and g^g^jjors"^ 
 incurs costs, and is stopped in the prosecution of such 
 action by the advertisement for a creditors' representative 
 under the Winding-up Act of 1857, although he has notice 
 subsequently of a winding-up petition having been pre- 
 sented, he is entitled to his costs of the action up to the 
 time of the issuing of the advertisement (Re Welsh Potosi 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 COSTS UNDER PAETICULAR ACTS. 
 
 Lead 8f Copper Mining Company, ex parte Tohin, 7 
 W. R. 4). A person claiming to be creditor unsuccessfully 
 appealing against a disallowance of his debt will be ordered 
 to pay costs ( Wryglite's Case, 2 Be G. M. §• G. 641 ; Ex 
 parte Lloyd, 1 Sim. n. s. 251). 
 Costs in Except by agreement, the costs of contributories repre- 
 
 contribu-"^ senting a class, and contending unsuccessfully, will not be 
 tories. allowed out of the estate (i?e Royal British Bank, ex 
 
 parte Watson, 3 Jur. n. s. 853). As to the costs of a con- 
 tributory successfully opposing the winding up of a 
 company, see Re Minima Organ Company (^Limited), 11 
 W. R. 530. A contributory unsuccessfully appealing 
 against an order retaining him on the list ( Gibson's Case, 
 2 Be G. Sf J. 285 ; Ex parte Sichell, 1 Sim.n. s. 192), 
 or unsuccessfully moving to discharge a winding-up order 
 ( Clarke's Case, 1 K. ^ J. 22), or to disturb a compromise 
 made with other contributories {L,acy''s Case, 4 Be G. M. §• 
 G. 356), will be ordered to pay the costs. 
 Call for In Hunter's Case, 1 Sim. n. s. 435, it was held that no 
 
 order ought to be made for a call upon the contributories 
 of a provisionally registered company on account of the 
 costs of winding up the company, until the liabilities of 
 the contributories had been ascertained, or at least till 
 the Master had ascertained the liability of the contribu- 
 tories to the costs in respect of which the call was made. 
 "What "Where a company engaged in a business not authorised 
 
 able^ouTof ^7 ^*^ deed of settlement, and the solicitors to the corn- 
 company's pany, knowing that the business was unauthorised, were 
 employed by the directors to bring an action, and to de- 
 fend other actions in respect of claims arising out of the 
 unauthorised business, and the defence to the latter 
 actions was on the merits, and not by a plea of ultra vires, 
 it was held that the solicitors must be considered with 
 respect to such actions as the solicitors of the directors, 
 and not of the company, and that they could not prove 
 for their bills of costs upon the company's assets ; and 
 that the solicitors could not appropriate monies of the 
 
COSTS UNDER OTHEE ACTS. 229 
 
 company paid to them on account generally to the pay- 
 ment of such bill of costs {Re Phcenix Life Assurance 
 Company, ex parte Howard ^- Dolhnan, 2 N. R. 548). 
 
 By the 110th section of the Companies Act, 1862, it Companips 
 is provided that 'the Court may, in the event of the ^cte^^^ 
 assets being insufficient to satisfy the liabilities, make an s. no. 
 order as to the payment out of the estate of the comT)any *^?sts of 
 
 1 1 • -\ • -T Winding 
 
 of the costs, charges, and expenses incurred ui wmdmg up by 
 up any company ia such order of priority as the Court '^°™'- 
 thinks just.' This section (which relates to the winding 
 up by the Court) is substantially a re-enactment of the 
 87th section of the 19 & 20 Vict, c. 47. 
 
 AYhere one petition for the ivinding up of a company Costs of 
 had been presented, but the conduct of the petitioner ^''™"'i 
 made it doubtful whether he was in earnest, the costs of a winding 
 second petition were allowed {Re Commercial Discount afi'owed" 
 Company {Limited), Cooper^s Case, \ N. R. 416). Where Contribu- 
 a shareholder, although not served with the petition for to'^y ™<=- 
 winding up, appeared thereon by counsel and successfully opposing. 
 opposed the winding up, he was held entitled to his costs 
 {Re Minima Organ Company {Limited), 11 IV. R. 530). 
 
 The I45th section of the Companies Act, 1862, provides s. 145. 
 that all costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred in '-'Ost^ °' 
 the voluntary winding up of a company, includmg the winding 
 remiineration of the liquidators, shall be payable out of "^' 
 the assets of the company in priority to all other claims. 
 
 As to fees and charges to be allowed to solicitors in 
 winding up cases, see post, App. Ko. 1. 
 
 Section VI. — Costs under other Acts. 
 
 By the 19 & 20 Vict., c. 120, the Act to facilitate Leases costs 
 
 and Sales of Settled Estates, section 29, it is enacted that, '^"^"^^^^^ 
 
 ' it shall be lawful for the Court, if it shall think fit, to Sales of 
 
 order that all or any costs or expenses of all or any parties Estates 
 
 of and incident to any application under this Act shall be Act. 
 
230 COSTS UNDER PAETICULAK ACTS. 
 
 a charge on the hereditaments which are the subject of the 
 application, or on any other hereditaments included in the 
 same settlement, and subject to the same Kmitations; and 
 the Court may also direct that such costs and expenses 
 shall be raised by sale or mortgage of a sufficient part of 
 such hereditaments, or out of the rents or profits thereof, 
 such costs and expenses to be taxed as the Court shall 
 direct.' As the Act only authorises applications which 
 are for the benefit of all parties entitled under the settle- 
 ment (see sections 2 and 10), the costs are always directed 
 to be borne by the inheritance. For form of order under 
 section 29, see Re Shaio, Seton on Decrees, 536, 3rd 
 edition. 
 Costs By the 30th section of the 22nd & 23rd Vict., c. 35' 
 
 22 & 23 (the Law of Property Amendment Act), which authorises 
 
 Viet. c. 35, ajjy trustee, executor, or administrator, without the insti- 
 B. 30. . 
 
 tution of a suit, to apply by petition to any Judge of the 
 
 Court of Chancery, or by summons upon a written state- 
 ment to any such Judge at chambers, for the opinion, 
 advice, or direction of such Judge on any question respect- 
 ing the management or administration of the trust pro- 
 perty or the assets of any testator or intestate, it is pro- 
 vided that the costs of such application shall be in the 
 discretion of the Judge to whom the said application shall 
 be made. As a general rule, such costs wiU be ordered to 
 come out of the corpus of the trust property. See Re 
 M'Veagh, cited in Seton^s Decrees, 773, 3rd edition; 
 Re Elwes, ibid. 774. But where the question arose as 
 to the application of income, the costs of a petition pre- 
 sented under the Act were ordered to be borne by the 
 income {Anon, 8 W. R. 333 ; see ante, p. 218). 
 
231 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 COSTS AFFECTIXG PARTICTJLAE PERSONS. 
 
 Section I. — Costs of Assignees, Incumbrancers, ^c. 
 
 The principles on atMcIi the Court acts in disposing of Costs of 
 the costs of assignees and incumbrancers, as between asdenee?: 
 themselves and strangers in administration suits, are also i- ^s 
 applicable to other suits in which the costs are payable out themselves 
 of a fund ; see ante, pp. 88, 125, 126, and the cases there ^^^ 
 
 -rr-i 1 strangers. 
 
 cited. VNnere the costs are payable by a party to the 
 suit personally, the general rule is that incumbrancers 
 are entitled only to add their costs to their securities 
 against their own assignors. If the assignor is plaintiiF, 
 and the assignees defendants, the latter ^vill not in general 
 be entitled to have their costs over from the principal 
 defendants who are ordered to pay the plaintift''s costs 
 {Tofham v. Duke of Portland, 3 N. R. 183); but in 
 mortgage suits the mortgagee is entitled to add the 
 costs of assio-nees from him to his own, see the cases cited 
 ante, pp. 166, 167. In a suit to raise a legacy charged 
 on land, the mortgagee of the derisee was not allowed 
 costs against the legatee {ShacMeton v. Shackleton, 2 jS*. 
 ^~ S. 242). Incumbrancers on the life estate, who are 
 necessary parties to a suit by prior incumbrancers on 
 the inheritance, are not allowed costs against the inheri- 
 tance {Ennis v. Brady, 1 Dr. ^ Wal. 720). If the first 
 incumbrancer is not a necessary f)arty to a suit respecting 
 the equity of redemption, he will not be entitled to costs 
 out of the fund, but only against the plaintiff personally 
 {Laird v. Tobin, 1 Mol. 543) ; secus if the co-defendant 
 raise such a case as to make the incumbrancer a necessary 
 
232 COSTS AFFECTING PAETICULAK PEESONS. 
 
 ii. As 
 
 between 
 
 assignor 
 
 and 
 
 assignee. 
 
 Costs of 
 assignees 
 in bank- 
 ruptcy or 
 insolvency. 
 
 party (ibid.). In Cockell v. Taylor, 15 Beav. 127, which 
 was a suit to set aside a mortgage on a reversionary in- 
 terest, it was held that submortgagees had, under the cir- 
 cumstances, no equity against the plaintiff, and they had 
 -to pay the costs of insisting on their securities ; but in 
 Tottenham v. Green, 1 N. R. 466, they were allowed to 
 add their costs of suit to their security, and see Gomley v. 
 Wood, 3 J. 8f L. 678, and ante, p. 177. As to the costs 
 of transferees of a mortgage generally, see ante, pp. 165, 
 seg. As to the costs of persons claiming under one of the 
 parties to a partition suit, see ante, pp. 173, 174. 
 
 As to the mode in which costs are disposed of, as be- 
 tween assignor and assignee, see ante, pp. 125, 126, and 
 ch. iv. sec. viii. generally. Where the plaintiff in an 
 administration suit mortgaged pendente lite, his share was 
 carried to a separate account, and he was allowed his costs 
 as between party and party out of it, but not his extra 
 costs, as between solicitor and client, as against his mort- 
 gagee (Smith V. Plummer, 18 L. J. n. s. 456). 
 
 There is no special right in assignees in bankruptcy or 
 insolvency which exempts them from the ordinary rule on 
 the subject of costs {Pattison v, Graham, 2 Sm. §• G. 
 207); and they have therefore no better title to costs 
 than their bankrupt or insolvent would have had ( Walker 
 V. Molloy,- 6 Ir. Eq. R.21S,; Carr v. Henderson, 11 Beav. 
 415 ; and see the cases cited ante, p. 83, as to the right to 
 costs of an assignee in insolvency disclaiming). Where 
 the assignees of the mortgagor of a share in a ship were 
 made parties to a suit by the owners of the other share 
 to determine a question raised by the mortgagees, they 
 got no costs {Green v. Briggs, 6 Ha. 632). In a suit by 
 the wife of a bankrupt, to administer an estate and esta- 
 blish the plaintiff's equity to a settlement, the assignees 
 were allowed no costs, as the bankrupt was a debtor to 
 the estate {Rotherham v. Battson, 2 Sm. §- G. app. viii.). 
 Assignees brought before the Court by supplemental bill 
 may become liable to the whole costs of the suit if they 
 
COSTS OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ETC. 233 
 
 adopt it ( Whitcomh \. Minchin, 5 Mad. 91 ; Poole v. Franks, 
 1 Mol 78), although they do not resist the .plaintiff's 
 demand further than by submitting the question to the 
 Court {Blythex. Granville, 13 Sim. 190). In Ulntcomb 
 V. Minchin, loc. cit., it was held that the plaintiff should 
 apply to the assignees to satisfy his demand or disclaim 
 before filing a bill against them, but this will not hold as 
 a general principle (see the cases cited ante, p. 82). 
 Where, however, the bankrupt or insolvent would have 
 had to pay costs, his assignees may escape without costs, if 
 the estate has been administered, and they have no assets 
 in their hands ( Williams v. Nixon, 2 Beav. 472 ; Edwards 
 V. Jones, 1 Coll. 247 ; Rider v. Jones, 2 Y. ^ C. C. C. 
 329). In Collins Y. Reece, 1 Coll. 675, the trustees of a 
 creditor's deed had to pay the costs of a bill filed by the 
 assignee in insolvency of the debtor for an account. 
 
 As to the costs of assignees, where plaintiff or defendant 
 becomes bankrupt, see further pp. 56, sen. ; and as to the ^^'^ s"i' 
 costs of the assignees of a bankrupt executor, see ante, bankrupt. 
 
 jS'o difference is made in respect of costs between the ence 
 official and creditors' assignees {ISlliotson v. Knowles, 5 offidaland 
 Jur. 549). 
 
 Where a 
 party to 
 
 creditors' 
 assignees. 
 
 Section II. — Costs of Attorney General, Crown, ^-c. 
 By Statute 18 & 19 Vict., c. 90, sec. 1, it is enacted Stat. IS & 
 
 P ,1 19 Vict. L-. 
 
 as follows:— ^ ^ ^o,s^^.i. 
 
 ' In all informations, actions, suits, and other legal pro- 
 ceedings to be hereafter instituted before any court or 
 tribunal whatever in the United Kingdom, J)y or on be- 
 half of the Crown, against any corporation, or person, or 
 persons in respect of any lands, tenements, or heredita- 
 ments, or of any goods or chattels belonging or accruing 
 to the Crown, the proceeds whereof, or the rents and pro- 
 fits of which said lands, &c. by any Act now in force, or 
 
234 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAK PEKSONS. 
 
 hereafter to be passed, are to be carried to the Con- 
 solidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, or in respect 
 of any sum or sums of money due and owing to Her 
 • Majesty by virtue of any vote of Parliament relating to 
 the public revenue, Her Majesty's Attorney General, or 
 in Scotland the Lord Advocate, shall be entitled to re- 
 cover costs for and on behalf of Her Majesty where 
 judgment shall be for the Crown in the same manner and 
 under the same rules, regulations, and provisions as are 
 or may be in force touching the payment or receipt of 
 costs in proceedings between subject and subject, and such 
 costs shall be paid into the Exchequer and shall become 
 part of the Consolidated Fund. 
 See. 2. ' 2. If in any such information, action, suit, or other 
 
 legal proceedings judgment shall be given against the 
 Crown, the defendant or defendants shall be entitled to 
 recover costs in like manner and subject to the same rules 
 and provisions as though such proceedings had been had 
 between subject and subject ; and it shall be lawful for 
 the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, and they are 
 hereby required, to pay such costs out of any monies which 
 may be hereafter voted by Parliament for that purpose.' 
 Rule Before the passing of this Act the rule, as generally 
 
 passing of Stated, was, that the Crown neither paid nor received 
 the Act. costs {Burney N. Macdonald, 15 Sim. 6; Smith v. Her 
 Majesty's Officer of State for Scotland, 13 Jur. 713 ; 
 Hohson V. Neale, 17 Bea.v. 178). But that statement 
 was too broad. The Court had no jurisdiction to give 
 costs against an officer of the Crown suing on its behalf 
 {Rex V. Corum, 1 Anstr. 5 ; Lord Advocate v. Lord 
 Dunglas, 9 CI. §• F. 173 ; Wilkinson v. Allot, Cowp. 367 ; 
 Corporation of Ludlow v. Greenhouse, 1 Bl. n. s. 48 ; Cor- 
 poration of London v. Attorney General, 1 Ho. Lds. Ca. 
 440). But instances have occurred in which the Crown 
 has received costs (see Skinners' Company v. Lrish Society, 
 12 CI. §• F. 425, where a bill, to which the Attorney 
 General was a defendant, was dismissed with costs; 
 
COSTS OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL, ETC. 235 
 
 Attorney/ General x. Ashburnham, 1 5". lJ,- 5*. 394 ; Attorneij 
 General v. Corporation of London, 12 Beav. 171, 2 Mac. 
 §- G. 247). But where parties have no chance of getting 
 costs, the Court is cautious how it makes them pay costs 
 ( Corporation of London v. Attorney General, 1 Ho. Lds. 
 Ca. 440, 471); and va. Attorney Geiieral y. Corporation of 
 London, 2 Mac. §• G. 247, Lord Cottenham said the rule 
 should be, that where the Attorney General could be 
 called upon to pay costs had he been a private individual, 
 there he ought not to receive costs. In that case costs 
 were given because the Attorney General, as respondent on 
 an appeal, could not have been made to pay costs if a 
 private individual, as to which see ante, pp. 100, seq. Where The Act 
 the information was filed before the passing of the Act, gpective. 
 but other defendants were added by amendment after the 
 Act, the Court gave the latter defendants only costs against 
 the Crown (Attorney General v. Hanmer, 4 De G. §• Jo. 
 205). As to the form of the order for payment of costs 
 by the Attorney General, see ibid., and Seton, 351. 
 
 It will be observed that the Act does not apply either The Act 
 where the Attorney General is a defendant, or where he appiy^to 
 sues on behalf of a charity. In the latter case, the rule ex officio 
 still applies that the Attorney General cannot be made to infomia- 
 pay costs where he sues without a relator (Attorney t'°°^- 
 General v. Dean ^ Canons of Windsor, 8 Ho. Lds. Ca. 
 369, 404 ; Attorney General v. Lord Chesterfield, 18 Jur. 
 686). But he may receive costs; and it seems the Court 
 will be more inclined to give costs in a charity informa- 
 tion than when the Attorney General is suiag on behalf 
 of a claim by the Crown (Attorney General v. Ashburnham, 
 1 S. §- S. 394 ; and see Perkins \. Bradley, 1 Ha. 219). 
 
 If the Attorney General is made a party to a suit in Where the 
 respect of a share in an estate or fund claimed by the general^is 
 Crown, he may have costs out of the estate or fund if defendant 
 there is something coming to the Crown, but not other- 
 wise (see Perkins v. Bradley, 1 Ha. 219, where the 
 Attorney General unsuccessfully claimed an interest in 
 
236 COSTS AFFECTING TAETICULAR PEESOKS. 
 
 the share of a felon against purchasers for value ; Murphy 
 V. Osborne, 9 Ir. Eq. R. 254, where the Attorney 
 General was made a defendant in respect of a charge 
 vested in a deceased bastard, and nothiag was found due 
 on the charge). In Kitchener v. Kitchener, 13 Jur. 761, 
 the costs of the Attorney General, made a defendant in 
 respect of a reversionary interest belonging to a felon, 
 were not provided for by the decree, as the right would 
 not arise till the reversion fell into possession. The At- 
 torney General made defendant to a legatee's bill and 
 supporting the plaintiif, whose bill was dismissed, did not 
 receive any costs ( Corporation of Glossier v. Wood, 3 Ha. 
 149). And the Crown will not be entitled to the costs of 
 the Attorney General's appearance, in a suit, to which he 
 is not a party, to argue a question as to legacy duty, if 
 the claim is unsuccessful [Hobson v. Neale, 17 Beav. 178); 
 or as to the right of a convict to a share of personal 
 estate {Gough v. Davies, 4 fF. E. 757). Where the 
 interest in respect of which the Attorney General is made 
 a party is of such a nature that the Court would ordinarily 
 allow three counsel, two counsel will be allowed besides 
 the Attorney General (^Cockburn v. Raphael, 12 L. J. 
 n. s. ch. 263). 
 Costs of Where the Solicitor to the Treasury has taken out ad- 
 
 Solicitor to ministration, as nominee of the Crown, to a deceased per- 
 the Trea- gon, he is in the same position as any other administrator, 
 adminis- and will be entitled to his costs, charges, and expenses 
 ^'■'^°| °" accordingly (Partington v. Reynolds, 6 W. R. 615). But 
 the Crown, if he appeals against a decree finding certain persons to 
 be next of kin he cannot have costs, as the appeal is in 
 respect of the beneficial interest of the Crown, and not 
 his legal title as administrator (ibid.). And so, if the 
 letters of administration have been revoked before a suit 
 by the next of kin to recover property in the hands of 
 the Solicitor to the Treasury, he cannot have costs (Kane 
 V. Reynolds, 4 De G. M. §• G. 565). 
 Costs on By Statute 23 & 24 Vict., c. 34, sec. 11, it is enacted. 
 
COSTS OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND. 237 
 
 that upon any such petition of right, as mentioned in the petitions 
 Act, the Attorney General or other person appearing on °^''Jf,J}* ^ 
 behalf of Her jNIajesty shall be entitled to recover costs the sxip- 
 against the suppliant in the same manner as in proceed- [he Crown- 
 ings between subject and subject, ^\'ith the same remedies 
 for recovering; the same. 
 
 And by section 12 it is enacted, that the suppliant by the 
 shall in Kke manner be entitled to costs against the the^" ° 
 
 Crown. suppliant. 
 
 And by sections 13, 14, & 15, arrangements are made 
 for the mode of paying the costs incurred by the Crown. 
 
 of stock. 
 
 Section III. — Costs of the Bank of England. 
 
 With respect to the transfer of the public stocks, the The bank 
 
 Bank occupies a quasi-fiduciary position, and will, in many ^os'tT^ 
 
 cases, be allowed the costs of a suit to compel a transfer of occasioned 
 
 stock, which the Bank has refused to permit without the eessM 
 
 direction of the Court. In Pearson v. Bank of Enqland, ^'^^^^'^\ to 
 
 . permit a 
 
 2 Bro. C. C. 529, 2 Cox, 175, the tenant for life of stock a transfer 
 bought the reversion, and the Bank having refused to 
 transfer it upon a joint memorial, a transfer was directed 
 with costs to the Bank ; and see Austin v. Bank of Eng- 
 land, 8 Ves. 522 ; Marryatt v. Bank of England, ibid. 
 524, n. ; Aynsworth v. Bank of England, ibid. So where 
 the Bank refused to pay dividends without the direction 
 of the Court, on account of a doubt as to the construction 
 of a statute, they were allowed costs, though the decree 
 was against them (Bristed v. Wilkins, 3 Ha. 235). 'It 
 is a question of the greatest nicety, and one requiring to 
 be settled for the protection of the public at large. The 
 property in question is consols, as to which the Bank are 
 pubHc trustees. If it had been Bank stock, which is 
 their own property, a diflferent question might have arisen. 
 As it is, I cannot possibly say that the Bank ought to 
 pay costs ' (per V. C. Wood, Bathe v. Bank of England, 
 
238 COSTS AFFECTING PAETICULAK PERSONS. 
 
 No costs 
 given. 
 
 Where the 
 bank paid 
 costs. 
 
 Costs of 
 the bank 
 unneces- 
 sarily 
 made 
 parties. 
 
 The costs 
 of the 
 bank dis- 
 obeying an 
 order 
 made by 
 the Court 
 ultra vires. 
 
 Out of 
 what fund 
 coats are 
 given to 
 the bank. 
 
 4 /sT §• j;'564). In that case, which was a suit by a 
 married woman with an order of protection under the 
 Divorce Act, to compel a transfer of stock to which she 
 was entitled as administratrix, a transfer was directed, but 
 the parties being in poor circumstances no costs were given 
 to the Bank. However, in Franklin v. Bank of England, 1 
 Russ. 575, where the Bank refused to permit an executor 
 to transfer a sum of stock specifically bequeathed, it was 
 held that the legacy was not good without the assent of 
 the executor, and therefpre he, not having yet assented to 
 it, might transfer the stock, and the Bank had to pay the 
 costs of the suit ; and see Bank of England v. Parsons, 
 
 5 Ves. 663. 
 
 If the Bank are made parties to a suit in a case where 
 the required relief against them might have been had 
 under Statute 40 Geo. III., c. 36 (enabling the Court to 
 restrain the Bank though not parties to the suit), they 
 will be dismissed with costs {Edridge v. Edridge, 3 Mad. 
 386). But, it seems, a demurrer would not lie in such a 
 case {Temples. Bank of England, 6 Ves. 7T0). If they 
 are made parties merely for the purpose of discovery as 
 to the amount of stock belonging to the testator, a de- 
 murrer will lie (^Saunders \. Saunders, 2 Drew. 387); or 
 if brought to the hearing the Bank will be dismissed with 
 costs, but as between party and party only (Z>e Combe v. 
 Be Combe, 2 Jur. n. s. 712). 
 
 In Ex parte Winter, 5 Russ. 286, the Bank was held 
 to be entitled to disobey an order under Statute 6 
 Geo. IV., c. 74 (the old Trustee Act), as made on an 
 insufficient statement of fact, and were allowed the costs 
 of successfully arguing the point ; and see Re King, 10 
 Sim. 605. 
 
 Where the Bank were made parties to a suit to deter- 
 mine the rights to a specific legacy of stock, they were 
 allowed costs out of the legacy only, the costs of all other 
 parties coming out of the general personal estate {Ham- 
 mond V. Neame, 1 Swans. 35 ; and see Skrymshire v. 
 Northcote, ibid. 566, 573). 
 
COSTS or BANKRUPTS. 239 
 
 Section IV. — Costs of Bankrupts. 
 
 VV here a certificated bankrupt was made a party to a Wliere the 
 suit in respect of a claim against the bankrupt and his jj!™ "^"^ 
 partners accruing before the bankruptcy, lie was held I'ccomeso 
 
 1^ ^ J before suit 
 
 entitled to have his costs from the plaintiff (^Pannell v. 
 Hurley, 2 Coll. 241). But in Gregory v. Bessell, 6 Mad. 
 186, a bankrvtpt who had been guilty of fraudulent con- 
 duct was dismissed without costs. As a bill against a 
 bankrupt in respect of a matter antecedent to the bank- 
 ruptcy is demurrable both as to relief and discovery 
 [Gilbert Y. Leicis, 1 De G. J. ^ S. 38), it should seem that 
 a bankrupt defendant not demurring may on that account 
 lose his costs according to the rule stated, ante, p. 78. A 
 bankrupt made a defendant to a bill to determine the re- 
 spective i-ights of his wife and his assignees, will be allowed 
 his costs, although he is a debtor to the estate (Rotherham 
 V. Battson, 2 Sm. Sf G. app. viii.), and in Green v. Otte, 
 2 L. J. 123, they were allowed as between solicitor and 
 client. 
 
 A motion to dismiss for want of prosecution the bill of Where a 
 a sole plaintiff, who has become bankrupt in the course of plaintiff 
 the suit, is irregular, and will be refused with costs ^^^^^^^ 
 {Robinson v. Norton, 10 Beav. 484). This point, which in the 
 is now settled, was much discussed in the earlier cases ti°e's^^;t. 
 (see Hall v. Chapman, 1 Dick. 348 ; Ex parte Berry, 
 ibid. 81; Sellers v. Dawson, 2 Dick. 738; Boddy v. 
 Kent, 1 Mer. 365). In default of the assignees reviving 
 the suit within a given time, the bill is dismissed without 
 costs; see ante, p. 56 and the cases there cited, where 
 also the form of the notice of motion is given. If the 
 suit is brought to a hearing after the sole plaintiff has be- 
 come bankrupt, and the bill is then dismissed, it vrall also 
 be without costs (see Boucicault v. Delqfield, 12 W. R. 
 1025, 4 N. R. 476, where the plaintiff became bankrupt 
 after the hearing of the cause, but before judgment was 
 given ; but see the other way, Smith v. Fry, 1 Dick. 288) ; 
 unless vexatious conduct or fraud is proved against 
 
Where one 
 of co- 
 plaintiffs 
 becomes 
 bankrupt. 
 
 Where a 
 defendant 
 becomes 
 bankrupt. 
 
 Costs of a 
 bankrupt, 
 executor, 
 or trustee. 
 
 240 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 the bankrupt, in which case he may be ordered at the 
 hearing to pay costs personally {Locke v. Bromley, 3 Ves- 
 40 ; and see the observations of V. C. Wood in Bouci- 
 cault V. Delfiaeld, lac. cit). An order for the payment 
 of the costs of the defendant to a bill of discovery, how- 
 ever, is regular, though the plaintiff has become a bank- 
 rupt {Hihherson v. Fielding, 2 S. 8f S. 371). 
 
 Where one of several co-plaintiffs becomes bankrupt, 
 the bill will be dismissed with costs in default of the other 
 plaintiiFs perfecting the suit within a limited time {ante, 
 p. 57, and the cases there cited). 
 
 A defendant who has become a bankrupt or insolvent 
 may nevertheless dismiss the bill with costs for want of 
 prosecution (see ante, p. 54, and the cases there cited). 
 And the Court will not at the instance of the assignees 
 order the plaintiffs to file a supplemental bill, or in default 
 have their bill dismissed {Manson v. Burton, 1 Col. 626). 
 
 A bankrupt executor or trustee, however, will be en- 
 titled to his costs of suit in the usual form, whether the 
 bankruptcy has occurred before the suit ( Cotton v. Clark,16 
 Beav. 134), or afterit ( Samuel v. Jones, 2 Ha. 246 ; Turner 
 V. Mollineux, 9 W. R. 252). If a balance is found due from 
 the bankrupt to the estate, it may be set off against his 
 costs up to the bankruptcy, but not his subsequent costs 
 (see a«fe, pp. 127, 128). So a bankrupt trustee is entitled 
 to his costs of appearance on a petition for the appointment 
 of new trustees {Turner v. Mollineux, loc. cit). 
 
 Costs ordered to be paid, but not taxed before the 
 bankruptcy of the person to receive them, cannot be set 
 off in bankruptcy against a debt due from the party to pay 
 them {Ex parte Rhodes, 15 Ves. 539). 
 
 Order as to 
 costs of 
 guardian 
 ad litem. 
 
 Section Y.— Costs of Guardian ad Litem. 
 
 ' Where the Court appoints one of the solicitors of the 
 Court to be guardian ad litem of an infant or person of 
 unsound mind, the Court may direct that the costs to be 
 incurred in performance of the duties of such office shall 
 
COSTS OF GUARDIAN 'AD LITEM.' 241 
 
 be borne and paid either by the parties, or some or one 
 of the parties to the suit in which such appointment is 
 made, or out of any fund in court in which such infant 
 or person of unsound mind may be interested, and may 
 give directions for the repayment or allowance of such 
 costs as the justice and cu'cumstances of the case may 
 require ' (40 Cons. Ord. r. 4). 
 
 "Where the solicitor to the Suitors' Fee Fund is appointed Where 
 guardian to a defendant who is an infant, or of unsound appointed 
 mind, at the instance of the plaintiff, it is the settled rule ^.' P^™' 
 that the plamtiii shall pay his costs m the first mstance, stance, he 
 and add them to his own {Frazer v. Thompson, 4 De G. P'^^^ '^'T . 
 8f J. 659; Newbury v. Marten, 15 Jur. 166); although mayhaTP 
 it is a foreclosure suit, and the security is insufficient "^^ °^''''' 
 (Harris v. Hamlyn, 3 De G. §• -S". 470). But in a par- 
 tition suit, the guardian's costs were ultimately charged 
 on the infant's share {Rohinson v. Aston, 9 Jur. 224 ; and 
 see Rohey v. Whitewood, there cited). Where a guardian 
 was appointed at the plaintiff's instance to a defendant 
 alleged to be, but who was not really, an infant, the plain- 
 tiff bore the costs (^Green v. Badley, 7 Beav. 271). The 
 Court, however, has no jurisdiction to order the costs of 
 a defendant to whom the solicitor to the Suitors' Fee Fund, 
 is appointed guardian to be paid out of the suitors' fund 
 {Frazer v. Thompson, 4: De G. ^ J. 659). 
 
 Where a person of unsound mind, to whom a guardian Where a 
 ad litem had been appointed at the instance of the plain- ^^gou^n^^ 
 tiff, recovered before the hearing and applied for leave to m™d ^<^- 
 appear by his own solicitor, it was held that he must pay dmtcUte. 
 the costs of the guardian before obtaining an order to 
 substitute his own solicitor, but might add such costs to 
 his own costs of suit {Frampton v. Webh, 2 N. R. 547, 
 11 W.R. 1018). 
 
 Where the solicitor to the Suitors' Fee Fund is appointed The soliei- 
 guardian ad litem to an infant defendant, and also appears g^'itor,?'^ 
 for other parties defending in forma pauperis, he will be Fund ap- 
 entitled to his full costs in each case, notwithstanding the dMerent'" 
 
 E 
 
242 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 capacities 
 entitled to 
 full costs 
 in each. 
 
 rule in Re Colquhoun, 5 De G. M. &f G. 35, ante, p. 89, 
 which was held not to apply {Frazer v. Thompson, 1 
 Giff. 337). 
 
 Costs of 
 lieir at law, 
 as between 
 himself 
 and 
 devisee. 
 
 In suits to 
 perpetuate 
 testimony 
 
 Section VI. — Costs of Heir at law and Next of kin. 
 
 In Berney v. Eyre, 3 Ath. 387, Lord Hardwicke is 
 stated to have ' laid down the following general rules : — 
 that if a devisee bring a bill merely in perpetuam rei memo- 
 riam, and the heir at law does nothing more than cross- 
 examine the witnesses who are produced to confirm the 
 will, he is entitled to his costs. If he examines witnesses 
 to encounter the will, he shall not have his costs. This 
 is where the will does not pray relief, or is not brought to 
 a hearing. But when the cause is brought to a hearing, if 
 the heir at law has an issue directed to try the will, and 
 the will is established, as he has a right to be satisfied how 
 he is disinherited, he shall have his costs. If he sets up 
 insanity or any other disability against the person who 
 makes the will, and fails, he shall not have his costs. But 
 it must be a very strong case which will induce the Court 
 to give costs against him, as spoliation or secreting the 
 will. I should ' (said Lord Hardwicke, with reference to 
 the particular case before him) ' have decreed the de- 
 fendant, the heir, his costs, notwithstanding one witness 
 has sworn positively to an attempt of concealing the will, 
 because it is as positively denied by the defendant's 
 answer, but then it appears likewise that after the heir 
 was informed that the will was in the hands of a particular 
 person, he went and took out administration upon the 
 oath usual on those occasions, without ever making any 
 enquiry after the person whom he was informed by letter 
 had the wiU in his custody. This is such an improper 
 behaviour in the heir that I will not give him his costs.' 
 
 With regard to the first point mentioned by Lord 
 Hardwicke, the costs of the heir in a suit to perpetuate 
 
COSTS OF HEIR AT LAW, ETC. 243 
 
 testimony to the will merely, see ante, pp. 149, seq. and to the will 
 the cases there cited. The heir will be entitled to his "'^'^'^'y- 
 costs from the plaintiff, though he refuses to release his 
 x\g\it{Angell v. Broion, 2 P. W. 285, n.) 
 
 The rules above stated with respect to the costs of the Where the 
 heir, where the will is established against him, are followed tablished 
 generally, though subject to some modification. Where agamstthe 
 the heir is defendant he will be entitled to his costs from i. As de- 
 the plaintiff, both at law and in equity, though an issue ™ gj^{ ' 
 devisavit vel non is granted at his request and found ride. 
 against him, if he has not been vexatious or guilty of 
 tampering with the will {Blinkliorn v. Feast, 1 Dick. 153 ; 
 and see Boson v. Boson, ibid. 300 ; Johnson v. Gardiner, 
 ibid. 313; Gough v. Botevel, ibid. 396; Creic v. Jolliffe, 
 Free. Ch. 93; Tucker y. Sanger, M'Clel. §• Y. 425, 13 
 Pr. 609 ; Wright v. Wright, 5 Sim. 449) ; and he is en- 
 titled to examine witnesses on his own behalf ( Tuthill v. 
 Scott, 2 Moll. 468 ; notwithstanding the dictum in M' del. 
 §• Y. 445). ' The Court does not consider the heir bound 
 to litigate with his hands tied ; and he is at liberty to raise 
 any questions before the Court which may be fairly 
 necessary to determine the validity of the will ' (per V. C. 
 Parker, Grove v. Young, 5 De G. ^ S. 38). 
 
 It seems at one time to have been held that, if the heir The heir 
 set up a case of insanity or incompetence in the testator, privedof 
 and failed, he could not have costs (see Berney v. Eyre, costs as of 
 
 courSG 
 loc. cit. ; White v. Wilson, 13 Ves. 87 ; Smith v. Dearmer, where he 
 
 3 J o. ^ J". 278). But the rule now followed appears to ^'^j^^f^^'^^ 
 be, that even in this case the heir will not be deprived of fails. ' 
 his costs, unless the defence was made without any proper 
 or just grounds ( Waters v. Waters, 2 W. R. 642, and see 
 I K. &f J. 759 ; Roberts v. Kerslake, 1 K. ^ J. 751 ; 
 and see Grove v. Young, 5 Be G. Sf S. 38, though this 
 case is differently reported on this point in 15 Jur. 1100). 
 In Webb v. Claverden, 2 Atk. 424, Lord Hardwicke him- 
 self is reported to have said, that even where insanity is 
 alleged, the Court ' very often allows the heir his costs.' 
 
 B 2 
 
244 COSTS AFFECTING PAETICULAE PERSONS. 
 
 Whether the defence is a proper one to make will of course 
 depend upon the circumstances of each particular case. 
 In Waters v. Waters, loc. cit., the heir was allowed his 
 costs. In Roberts v. Ker slake, loc. cit., on the other hand, 
 V. C. Wood refused costs, because the heir lived in the 
 neighbourhood of the testator, who was subject to fits of 
 delirium, and knew of all the circumstances on which the 
 testator's sanity was established when the will was made. 
 The Vice-ChanceUor there suggested, as a test of the 
 propriety of the proceedings, the consideration whether 
 the Court would antecedently sanction such risk being 
 incurred on behalf of an infant. Again in Grove v. Young, 
 loc. cit., where the heir adduced voluminous evidence of 
 the testator's incompetence in the suit, but declined to raise 
 the question in an action which was directed for the purpose 
 of trying the will, the Court gave no costs at law or in 
 equity generally, but made the defendant pay the costs of 
 the useless evidence. But it must be a very exceptional 
 case in which costs will be given against the heir. In 
 White V. Wilson, 13 Ves. 87, the heir (in the language 
 of Lord Erskine) ' wickedly and fraudulently contested 
 this will,' but the Court gave no costs of the issue, made 
 the defendant pay the costs 6f a motion for a new trial, 
 and gave him the costs in equity, 
 ■^at The circumstance that the heir was a party to previous 
 
 circum- judicial proceedings in which the validity of the will 
 wili'de- "*^^® upheld, will be a reason for refusing him costs— as 
 prive the where the will as to personalty had been previously esta- 
 blished in the Ecclesiastical Court against the heir as one 
 of the next of kin {Stacey v. Sjiratley, A De G. ^ J. 199); 
 or where the heir had previously brought an action of 
 ejectment and failed {Grove v. Young, 5 De G. 8f S. 38). 
 Where a person was made defendant to a bill to establish a 
 devise of gavelkind lands as sole heir of the testator, and 
 admitted his title, but it was afterwards discovered that 
 his elder brother had left children, the original defendant 
 having in his answer to a supplemental bill admitted his 
 
 heir of 
 costs. 
 
COSTS or HEIR AT LAW, ETC. 245 
 
 knowledge of the fact, but alleged ignorance of the law, 
 was refused costs both at law and in equity {Roberts v. 
 Scoones, 7 Sim. 418). In Man v. Ricketts, 7 Beav. 93, the 
 heir at law, who was also a trustee under the will, ha\'ing 
 in a suit against him by the assignees of a cestui que trust 
 for an account, disputed the validity of the will after 
 twenty years' acquiescence, was refused an issue, and had to 
 pay the costs of the suit up to the hearing ; and see s. c. on 
 appeal, suh nom. Turquand \. Ricketts, 1 Ho. Lds. Ca. 472. 
 
 But where the heir at law has been guilty of spoliation Where the 
 or tampering with the will, he will have to pay the costs ^^^^ ^%^^ 
 of establishing it, as laid down by Lord Hardwicke in of spolia- 
 Berney v. Eyre, loc. cit. ; and see Williams v. Williams, ^'^^ eggts. 
 3 iV. R. 100, 12 W. R. 140. And that will be so, although 
 the costs are not increased by his misconduct (see 3liddle- 
 ton V. Middleton, 5 De G. Sg S. 656, where the heir tore 
 the will to pieces, which were put together again, and the 
 will was proved in that shape). In Marriott v. Marriott, 
 12 W. R. 303, the heir burnt a writing which was supposed 
 to be a valid will, but which turned out to be a nullity, 
 and in a suit by the devisee to establish this document as 
 a will, or in the alternative an earlier one — which was 
 ultimately established — the heir having admitted the 
 destruction of the second document, and also a copy of it, 
 had no costs up to the hearing, but had his costs of the 
 issue and his subsequent costs. 
 
 TThere, however, the heir at law files a bill to set aside ii. Where 
 a Avill, in a case in which he might have proceeded by js'piai'ntiff. 
 ejectment, this is such a vexation, that if he fails he "vvill 
 have to pay costs, so far at least as relates to the contro- 
 verting of the will ( Wehh v. Claverden, 2 Atk. 424 ; and 
 see Johnson v. Gardiner, 1 Dick. 313 ; Gough v. Botevel, 
 ibid. 396 ; Blinkhorn v. Feast, ibid. 153 ; Seal v. Bown- 
 ton, 3 Bro. C. C. 214 ; Tuthill v. Scott, 2 Moll. 468). 
 But if an outstanding legal estate, as to all or any part 
 only of the lands, prevents ejectment being brought, and 
 it is otherwise a reasonable case for investigation, the bill 
 
246 COSTS AFFECTING PAKTICULAE PERSONS. 
 
 will be dismissed without costs generally, but the heir 
 
 will have to pay the costs of the issue ( Tatham v. Wright, 
 
 2 R.Sf M. 1, 31 ; Scaife v. Scaife, 4 Buss. 309). In 
 
 Swinfen v. Sivinfen, 27 Beav. 148, 167, where the heir 
 
 disputed the will on the grounds of incompetency and 
 
 fraud, but for anything that appears might have brought 
 
 ejectment, no costs were given of the first trial, which 
 
 ended in an ineffectual compromise through the mistake of 
 
 all parties, but the heir had to pay the costs of the second 
 
 trial, in which the jury found in favour of the will, and 
 
 the costs of an unsuccessful motion for a neAV trial, and 
 
 the bill was then dismissed without further costs. 
 
 Present So, where the heir, instead of bringing ejectment, filed 
 
 S'thT °° ^ ^^^ ^'"^ discovery of the deeds by which he was disin- 
 
 Com-ts not herited, he had to pay the costs of the suit {Luxton v. 
 
 special Stephens, 3 P. W. 373). But in Lenian y.^lie, 1 Amb. 
 
 favoiirto ig3 a similar bill was dismissed without costs, with 
 the heir. ,..,.„ 
 
 a direction that, if the plaintiff should further molest 
 
 the defendants, they should be at liberty to apply for 
 
 costs, and it was said that an heir at law contending for 
 
 the inheritance on reasonable grounds, should not pay 
 
 costs 5 and see Stephens v. Trueman, 1 Ves. Sen. 73. But 
 
 ' in modern times the inclination of the Court has been to 
 
 place the heir at law in the same situation as other parties ' 
 
 (per Sir J. Eomilly, M. E.., Swinfen v. Swinfen, loc. cit.). 
 
 Where the Where, however, the question between the heir and 
 
 question devisee is one of construction only, it would seem that on 
 
 between . , •' ' 
 
 the heir the principles stated, ante, pp. 108, 113, seq., the heir at 
 
 ^^one^r^ law, though unsuccessful, should not pay costs, or may have 
 
 construe- them out of the estate ; and see Yates v. Compton, 2 P. 
 
 Next of ^^^- 308 ; Rashleigh v. Master, 1 Ves. Junr. 201. So a bill 
 
 kill- by next of kin, claiming the surplus against the executors, 
 
 was dismissed without costs {Blinhhorn v. Feast, 2 Ves. 27). 
 
 But where the question was whether a particular house 
 
 passed by the devise, and the heir failed at the trial of an 
 
 action at law to prove a material fact alleged in the suit 
 
 and but for which the action would not have been directed 
 
COSTS or HEIR AT LAW, ETC. 247 
 
 he had to bear the costs occasioned by the trial of the 
 action {jyewton v. Lucas, 1 Mi/. §• C. 393). 
 
 In charity cases the heir at law, if he makes no im- Costs of 
 proper point, will, though unsuccessful, be entitled to his ^extrf^ 
 costs {Curriey. PijC, 17 Yes. 462 ; Whicker v. Hume, 14 kin in 
 Bean. 528); and generally they will be allowed as be- cases/ 
 tween solicitor and client ( Currie \. Pye, loc. cit. ; James 
 Y. James, 11 Beav. 397), but not, it seems, as of right 
 ( JJliicker T. Hume, loc. cit. ; and see a7ite, pp. 139, 140). 
 So as to the costs of next of kin ( Carter v. Green, 3 IC. §- J. 
 608 ; Gaffney v. Hevey, 1 Dr. ^- Wal. 25). In Attorney 
 General v. Haberdashers^ Company, 4: Bra. C. C. 177, s. c. 
 Beames, app. 18, the heir at law having come in under an 
 enquiry in a charity information, and in a supplemental 
 information filed against him unsuccessfully claimed the 
 increased rents of the charity estate, was allowed his costs 
 out of the estate as between solicitor and client, including 
 those which he ' had been put to previously to the time of 
 being made a party to the suit in proving himself such 
 heir at law.' And in other cases the heir at law has been 
 allowed his costs, charges, and expenses (per Lord Lang- 
 dale, M.E., Attorney General v. Kerr, 4 Beav. 297, 299). 
 
 As to the costs of next of kin proving their title in Costs of 
 Chambers in an administration suit, see ante, p. 124. In y\\\ and 
 Su-ift V. Swift, 1 De G. F. &; J. 160, the testator's heiress ^^^}^, 
 
 111 -'ill ■ £■ admims- 
 
 at law, who had come m under the decree m a next ot tration 
 kin's suit, was allowed the costs of proving her pedigree, ^™''^' 
 as well as her general costs ; and see Att. Gen. v. Haber- 
 dashers^ Company, cited above, and the IMS. cases therein 
 referred to. 
 
 Where an heir at law, plaintiff, was put to prove his 
 pedigree, and it appeared that the evidence, which satisfied 
 the Court, was submitted to the defendants before suit, 
 the plaintiff had costs against them, though trustees, 
 personally {I^ancashire v. Lancashire, 1 De G. §• S. 288). 
 
 Where the real estate of an intestate has been ex- where the 
 hausted by his creditors, the heir at law, being in the li^iratlaw 
 
is in the 
 position of 
 a trustee. 
 
 Heir of 
 deceased 
 purchaser 
 not enti- 
 tled to 
 costs of 
 conTey- 
 auee. 
 
 248 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAK PERSONS. 
 
 position of a trustee, will be allowed costs, and as between 
 solicitor and client, whether as defendant (Tardrew v. 
 Howell, 2 Giff. 530), or as plaintiff {Shittler v. Shittler, 4 
 N. B. 475). In Hoddel v. Fuffh, 12 fV. R. 782, which 
 was a suit for specific performance by the executor of a 
 deceased vendor, the heir at law having refused to convey 
 had to pay the costs of the suit. As to the costs of an 
 infant heir at law in a suit for specific performance of his 
 ancestor's contract, see ante, pp. 186, seq., 192, n. 
 
 The heir at law of a deceased purchaser is not entitled 
 to have the costs of the conveyance of real estate con- 
 tracted to be purchased, which has descended on him, 
 paid out of the personal estate ( Waite v. Barnes, C. P 
 C. 502). 
 
 Costs as 
 tetween 
 the next 
 friend of 
 an infant 
 plaintiff 
 and the 
 defend- 
 ants,' 
 
 Section VII. — Costs of Infants and their Next Friends. 
 
 Any person is at liberty to file a bill in the name of an 
 infant, as his next friend [Mitf. PL 25); but by so doing 
 he renders himself liable to the defendants for all the costs 
 of the suit, including those of anyiuterlocutory proceedings 
 in it taken on behalf of the infant plaintifip (Jones v. Lewis, 
 1 Z)e G. §• iS". 245 ; and cf. Buchton v. Buckton, 2 Dick. 
 794; Roddam V. Hetherington, 5 Ves. 91). As between 
 the next friend and the defendants, the former is in the 
 same position with respect to costs as any adult plaintiff, 
 and the biU will, in a proper case, be dismissed with costs 
 payable by the nest friend. See Frank v. Mainioaring, 
 4 Beav. 37, where a bill was filed in the name of an in- 
 fant, under the sanction of a Master, to set aside certain 
 deeds alleged to have been executed by a settlor when a 
 lunatic, and a jury having found in favour of the deeds, 
 the bill was dismissed with costs ; and see also Bartlett v. 
 Wood, 9 W. R. 817, as to the costs occasioned by unproven 
 charges of misconduct made in an infant's bill. Where 
 two out of three infant plaintifis had attained twenty-one 
 
COSTS OP INFANTS, ETC. 249 
 
 before decree and had adopted the proceedings, and a 
 decree was made for payment of costs by the plaintiffs 
 generally, it was held that an attachment against the next 
 friend alone was not irregular {Purcell v. Woodley, 5 Ir. 
 Eq. R. 376). If, however, the infant dies before the 
 taxation of costs ordered to be paid by the next friend, it 
 IS said that the next friend cannot be proceeded against 
 for them, and the costs are lost {Morgan v. Compton, 
 Bunh. 332). 
 
 But as between the next friend and the infant, the Costs as 
 former will be entitled to the costs of a suit properly ul'eTnfaut 
 instituted for the infant's benefit {Dunn v. Dunn, 3 Drew, a"*^! ^^^ 
 17), though unsuccessful (see Taner v. Ivie, 2 Ves. 467, fAeud. 
 where the bill, which was filed with a Master's sanction, 
 had been dismissed with costs). And in general the 
 next friend's costs will be allowed as between soKcitor and 
 cKent {Brown v. Weatherhead, 4 Ha. 122); but not, it 
 seems, as a matter of right (see Osborne v. Denne, 7 Ves. 
 424, where the extra costs were refused). The extra 
 charges and expenses beyond taxed costs might also, it has 
 been said, be allowed to the next friend under the head 
 of 'just allowances' {Fearns v. Young, 10 Ves. 184). 
 
 The Court may provide for the next friend's costs out The next 
 of any funds under its control in the suit, but it will not noUen for 
 give the next friend a charge for his costs on an estate <^osts on an 
 recovered in the suit : see Bonser v. Bradshaw, 9 W. R. rpcovered 
 229, 7 Jur. n. s. 231, 30 L. J. 159, where the defendants i" the suit. 
 who had been ordered to pay the costs had absconded, and 
 the purchase monies of part of the estate recovered 
 having been paid into Court by a railway company, the 
 Court, on petition, ordered those monies to be applied 
 pro tanto in payment of the next friend's costs, but de- 
 clined to make any order as to the residue. Semble the 
 Statute 23 & 24 Vict., c. 127, s. 28, does not apply to 
 the costs of a next friend, so as to give him any charge on 
 the estate or funds recovered (zStVZ.) ; and the Court will 
 not hear an application by the next friend's solicitor to 
 
250 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 Costa 
 "where tlie 
 suit is 
 found not 
 to be for 
 the in- 
 fant's 
 benefit. 
 
 Where the 
 next friend 
 will be 
 allowed 
 costs, or 
 the con- 
 trary. 
 
 charge the estate with his costs, unless it is substantially 
 opposed on behalf of the infant (s. c. \0 W. R. 481).* 
 
 The Court will, before decree, direct an enquiry 
 whether the suit is for the infant's benefit, or if so, 
 whether the next friend is a proper person to conduct it, 
 on. motion either of one of the defendants {Fox v. Suver- 
 krop, 1 Beav. 583), or the infant himself by another next 
 friend for the purpose of the application ( Guy v. Guy, 2 
 Beav. 460); and if the suit appears to have been im- 
 properly instituted, it will be dismissed with costs against 
 the next friend [ibid.) ; or taken off the file ( Walker v. 
 Flse, 7 Sim. 234) ; or some other person may be appointed 
 as next friend (Clayton v. Clarke, 2 Giff. 575). In a 
 clear case the bill may be at once dismissed with costs 
 Avithout a reference (Sale v. Sale, 1 Beav. 586). But the 
 Court will not direct a reference upon the application of 
 the next friend himself to see whether the suit which he 
 has instituted is for the infant's benefit (Jones v. Powell, 
 2 Mer. 141). And it is irregular to add such an enquiry 
 to a decree for accounts (Clayton v. Clarke, 9 W. R. 718, 
 overruling s. c. 2 Giff. 575). 
 
 The Court considers it to be prima facie for an infant's 
 benefit to be made a ward of Court, and have his property 
 administered and secured (Clayton v. Clarke, loc. cit); 
 the question whether the suit is for his benefit, there- 
 fore, will not depend upon the result of the accounts 
 (ibid; but see Anderson v. Yates, and Mackenzie v. 
 Taylor, cited below). The question is whether the suit 
 was instituted with a fair intention, and not to answer 
 some purpose of spleen, or other improper purpose on 
 the part of the next friend ( Whittaker v. Marlar, 1 Cox, 
 285). In the case last cited it was said that 'no degree 
 of mistake or misapprehension is sufiicient to charge a 
 next friend with costs ; ' but see Pearse v. Pearse, 9 Ves. 
 548, where the next friend, having filed his bill without 
 sufficient information of the facts, dismissed it with costs, 
 
 * The solicitor's application was ultimately granted after the plaintiflfcame 
 of age (4 Giff. 260). 
 
COSTS OF INFANTS, ETC. 251 
 
 and Lord Eldon reserved the question of costs as between 
 the next friend and the infant. In Clayton v. Clarke, loc. 
 cit., it appearing that the bill was filed from motives chiefly- 
 personal to the next friend, the Court gave him no costs 
 up to the hearing, but allowed huu the subsequent costs, 
 except those of an unsuccessful motion to vary the certifi- 
 cate. In Walker v. Else, 7 Sim. 234, where the next 
 friend was of immoral character and in low circumstances, 
 and had filed the bill to spite the mother of the infant, from 
 whose service he had been dismissed, the bill was ordered 
 to be taken oW the file, with costs against the next friend. 
 Again, in Anderson v. Yates, 5 De G. §- S. 202, a bill was 
 filed in the name of infants against the testator's widow 
 (the stepmother of the plaintifis) and her co-executor, 
 against whom (unproven) injurious imputations were 
 made ; the jNIaster ha^dng approved of the widow and her 
 co-executor as guardians, and the application of the whole 
 income for maintenance, and in fact left things as they were 
 before suit, the Court made the next friend pay all the 
 costs, and stayed further proceedings. Where a bill was 
 filed on behalf of infants entitled to one moiety of a residue 
 for an account, and the suit was opposed by adults entitled 
 to the other moiety, as unnecessary, the Court gave the 
 costs, including apparently those of the next friend, out of 
 the plaintiff's moiety, though the accounts proved correct 
 {Mackenzie v. Taylor, 1 Beav. 467). The next friend of 
 an infant was disallowed the costs of an appeal as un- 
 necessary ( (7«?n/»5e/Z v. Camplell, 2 My. Sf C. 25); and 
 so of an unnecessary suit (Ellis v. Ellis, 1 Russ. 368). 
 But the Court refused, in Smallwood v. Rutter, 9 Ha. 24, 
 either to dismiss or refer an infant legatee's bill on the 
 mere ground that the case might have been raised by 
 claim, or the fund might have been paid in under the 
 Trustees' Belief Act ; the propriety of any expenses being 
 matter for consideration when the costs are disposed of. 
 
 If two or more suits are instituted in the name of an Where two 
 infant, an enquiry will be directed which suit it is most suite^are 
 for the infant's benefit to have prosecuted, and proceed- instituted 
 
252 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 concur- 
 rently in 
 the name 
 of an 
 infant. 
 
 Costs after 
 the infant 
 has come 
 of age. 
 
 ings in the other or others will be stayed {Mitf. PI. 27, and 
 the cases there cited). The reference may be obtained 
 on the mere allegation that the suits are for the same 
 purpose ; it being at the risk of the party moving, in case 
 the allegation should prove untrue, to have the order 
 discharged with costs {^Sullivan v. Sullivan, 2 Mer. 40). 
 But the choice of one suit does not imply that the other 
 suit was improper ( Crowther v. Flood, 5 L. J. n.'s. ch. 352 ; 
 Starten v. Bartholomew, 6 Beav. 143). In the former case, 
 the next friend in the first suit, proceedings in which were 
 stayed, was allowed his costs out of the funds in the 
 second suit, in which a decree had been made. In the 
 latter case, the first bill was dismissed without costs, be- 
 cause the next friend was a mere nominee of the solicitor, 
 whose proceedings were in other respects also not strictly 
 regular, and the costs of the defendants only were made 
 costs in the second suit.* It is not usual, however, to 
 direct a reference after a decree has been made in one of 
 the suits {Taylor Y. Oldham, Jac. 527); and after one 
 cause is in the paper it is not of course to do so 
 (^Bundle v. Bundle, 11 Beav. 33). 
 
 The next friend will not be entitled to the costs of any 
 proceedings in the cause taken after the infant has come 
 of age. An infant, sole plaintiff, on coming of age, may 
 elect either to proceed with or discontinue the suit. If 
 he adopts the suit, he becomes liable to the costs of it 
 from the commencement {Mitf. PI. 26). If, on the other 
 hand, he repudiates the suit, or even, it would seem, takes 
 no steps in prosecuting it, he does not become liable for 
 any part of the costs, but the defendant must recover 
 them from the next friend ( Turner v. Turner, 2 St a. 
 708, 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 228, reversing s. c. 2 P. W. 297). 
 It follows that if the next friend is dead when the plaintiff 
 comes of age, and no new next friend has been appointed, 
 the defendant will not be able to recover the costs of a 
 
 * This case also shows that the bill in one suit may be dismissed at once, 
 ■which was doubted in Mortiiner v. West, 1 Swans. 35S. «» 
 
COSTS OF INFANTS, ETC. 253 
 
 suit, wliich the plaintiff has repudiated, at all ( Turnei- v. 
 Turner,loc.cit.\ andsee 3Ior(/anv. Compton,Bmib. 332).* 
 As between the next friend and the plaintiff, however, 
 the latter will, if the suit was properly instituted on his 
 behalf, be liable for the costs of it, together with the extra 
 costs of the next friend, although he elects to discontinue 
 it (Ajion. 4 3Iad. 461 f ; Brown v. Weatherhead, 4 Ha. 
 122 ; and see Dunn v. Dunn, 3 Dreiu. 17, 19). But the 
 plaintiff, it would seem, cannot himself move, on coming 
 of age, to have the bill dismissed with costs against the 
 next friend {Anon. 4 Mad. 461). The next friend has no 
 lien for his costs on deeds left in court for discovery 
 {Dunn v. Dunn, loc. cit.\ 
 
 The name of an infant co-plaintiff coming of age may wiiere an 
 be struck out on his own appKcation, either before decree "j '^°[.^°" 
 {Acres v. Little, 7 Sim. 138; Guy v. Guy, 2 Beav. 461); comes of 
 or after decree {Bicknell v. Bicknell, 32 Beav. 379). In ^^'^' 
 Guy V. Guy, loc. cit., the next friend was ordered, under 
 the circumstances, to pay the costs of the application ; 
 but in Bicknell v. Bicknell, loc. cit., no costs of the appli- 
 cation were given, and the next friend's costs were made 
 costs in the cause. A married woman who has been 
 Doiade co-plaintiff to a bUl when an infant, may, on coming 
 of age, have her name struck out ; but it seems she should 
 first be examined apart from her husband ( Cooke v. Fryer, 
 
 * Where the next friend of an infant plaintiff dies, the proper order 
 seems to be to refer it to Chambers to approve of a new next friend ( Glover 
 V. fVebher, 12 Sim. 351, following LudoIph\.8axby, and Lady Shdhurne\. 
 Lord Inchiquin, there cited) ; and not that the plaintiffs may appoint one, 
 as was said in Lancaster v. Thornton, Ami. 398, 1 Dick. 346 ; and see 
 Uracey v. SandAford, 3 Mad. 468. In Glover v. Webber, loc. cit., the next friend 
 died before decree ; in Bracey v. Sandiford, loc. cit., after decree. As to the 
 practice where the next friend of a married woman dies, see post, sec. viii. 
 
 t This case appears to have been misunderstood. It was a question ap- 
 parently between the next friend and the late infant, and not bi'twcen the 
 late infant and the defendants. In fact the biU may, for anything that 
 appears in the report, have been dismissed with costs against the next friend, 
 the infant undertaking to pay them. It may also be observed that the 
 plaintiff by moving in the suit, may be said to some extent to have adopted 
 it: and see Beames, 111 n. (15). 
 
254 COSTS AFFECTING PAKTICULAE PERSONS. 
 
 The next 
 friend re- 
 mains 
 liable 
 under an 
 order for 
 payment 
 of costs 
 made' 
 during the 
 plaintiff's 
 infancy. 
 
 The next 
 friend of 
 an infant 
 does not 
 give secu- 
 rity for 
 costs on 
 account of 
 poverty. 
 
 Qu. whe- 
 ther he 
 may sue 
 in formd 
 
 Wliere the 
 next friend 
 is changed. 
 
 4 Beav. 14). But the petition of a co-plaintiff, coming of 
 age, to be let into possession of her undivided share, or to 
 be indemnified against future costs, alleging that the ob- 
 jects of the suit, so far as concerned her interest, were 
 satisfied, was dismissed with costs {Smith v. Lyster, 4 
 Beav. 227). Where one of two infant co-plaintiifs has 
 come of age, and adopted the suit, the next friend has of 
 course no longer the exclusive control of it ; see Brown 
 V. Brown, 11 Beav. 562, where an order of course to 
 change solicitors obtained on the application of the next 
 friend alone, was discharged with costs. 
 
 The next friend also remains liable for all costs, for the 
 payment of which an order has been made during the 
 plaintiff's infancy ; see Frizell v. Hodgens, 2 Moll. 456, 
 where a decree was made for payment of costs to the 
 defendant, who did not apply for them until four years 
 and a half afterwards, during which time the plaintiff had 
 come of age, and got the funds in the suit out of court, 
 and. the next friend was held liable. 
 
 The next friend of a married woman may be required 
 to give security for costs on account of his poverty, but 
 not the next friend of an infant (see aiite, pp. 7, seq.). It 
 is an unsettled point whether the next friend of an infant 
 can sue in formd pauperis. On the one hand, there is a 
 dictum in an anonymous case (1 Ves. Junr. 409) that he 
 cannot do so ; and Sir J. Eomilly, M. K., expressed the 
 same opinion {Lindsey v. Tyrrel, 24 Beav. 124). On the 
 other hand. Lord Cranworth, C, doubted whether it 
 might not be allowed on a special application (^Lindsey 
 V. Tyrrell, 2 Be G. ^ J. 7). But it is quite clear that 
 an order of course for the purpose obtained on the com- 
 mon aflSdavit of the infant's poverty is irregular {ibid.). 
 
 A next friend cannot withdraw from the suit ivithout 
 an enquiry whether it is for the infant's benefit that anew 
 next friend should be substituted {Melling v. Melling, 4 
 Mad. 261). But he will in general be permitted to retire 
 upon giving security for the costs already incurred (see 
 
COSTS OF INFANTS, ETC. 255 
 
 ante, p. 9). The new next friend will, however, become 
 responsible to the defendants for the costs from the com- 
 mencement of the suit. In Lander v. Ingersoll, 4 Ha. 
 596, a solicitor, who had been employed by the infant's 
 mother to prosecute the suit, but was afterwards dis- 
 charged by her, having, on the death of the next friend, 
 named another one, and amended the bill accordingly, 
 the Court removed the new next friend on payment of 
 his costs by the mother, without prejudice to the ques- 
 tion by whom they should ultimately be borne, and made 
 the solicitor pay the costs of the application and of ap- 
 pointing a new next friend. On the substitution of one 
 next friend for another, the costs were ordered to be 
 paid out of the estate, without prejudice to any applica- 
 tion by the infant plaintiff for reimbursing her estate those 
 costs ( Taylor v. Oldham, Jac. 529). 
 
 In Elsey v. Cox, 26 Beav. 95, which was a suit by the as- Costs of 
 signees of a bankrupt to set aside a post-nuptial settlement a°fe°<i- 
 on his wife and infant child. Sir J. Eomilly, M. R.,held that ^'^ts- 
 the Court could not do more for the infant than not order 
 him to pay costs. But in Goldsmith v. Russell, 5 De G. M. 
 L^ G. 556, which was a similar suit, the costs of all parties 
 except the settlor were allowed out of the settlement 
 funds. The costs of the unsuccessful defence of an infant 
 in a suit to recover a sum of money under the limitations 
 of a settlement, were charged not upon the general fund, 
 but upon the infant's own share {^Lord Orford v. Churchill, 
 3 F. §• -B. 59). So, as to the costs of infants, parties to a 
 suit for partition (see ante, pp. 173, 174). And the 
 Court has jurisdiction in that case to order the sale of the 
 infant's share for payment of their costs (ibid.); and so 
 also in a suit for executing the trusts of real estates settled 
 on infants (ante, p. 118). As to the costs of a suit for 
 specific performance against the infant heir or devisee of 
 a deceased vendor (see ante, p. 186, seq.). The costs of 
 settHno" a conveyance in Chambers on behalf of an infant 
 come out of the estate {Brown v. Lake, 15 L. J. ch. 34). 
 
256 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 An infant 
 should be 
 made co- 
 plaintiff. 
 
 Costs of an 
 infant de- 
 fendant's 
 contempt. 
 
 Infant, on 
 coming of 
 age, apply- 
 ing to en- 
 large the 
 time to 
 
 Costs of 
 appointing 
 guardian 
 ad litem. 
 
 Costs of 
 
 infant 
 
 trustees. 
 
 An infant in the same interest with the plaintiffs ought 
 to be made a co-plaintiff ; and successful plaintiffs were not 
 allowed to recover with their own the costs of an infant 
 made defendant {Hosking v. Nicholls, 1 F. §• C. C. C. 478). 
 
 An infant defendant in contempt for not answering 
 pays no costs ; the plaintiff pays the costs of the messeji- 
 ger in that case (^Perkins v. Hammond, Dick. 287). 
 
 Where an infant defendant had been allowed his costs 
 out of the estate, on an understanding that there should 
 be no more litigation, and having come of age shortly 
 before the expiration of the five years fixed by 23 Cons. 
 Ord. r. 26, for enrolling the decree, moved two years 
 afterwards, under r. 28 of the same order, to enlarge the 
 time with a view to an appeal, the Court held it was not 
 a case in which it was ' just and expedient ' to make the 
 order {Monypenny v. Dering, 4 De O. §• J. 175). 
 
 As to the costs of a guardian ad litem to an infant 
 defendant, appointed at the instance of the plaintiff, see 
 ante, sect. v. 
 
 As to the costs of infant trustees, under the Trustee 
 Relief Act, see ante, ch. v. sect. ii. ; and under the Trustee 
 Acts, 1850, 1852, see ante, ch. v. sect. iii. 
 
 Where a 
 married 
 ■woman 
 sues by her 
 nextfriend. 
 
 Section VIII. — Costs of Married Woman and her Next 
 Friend, and as between Hushand and Wife. 
 
 A bill cannot be filed in the name of a married woman 
 by her next friend without her consent {^Andrews v. 
 Cradock, Free. Ch. 376, 1 Eq. Ca. Ab. 72 ; Cooke v. 
 Fryer, 4 Beav. 14 ; and see I S. &f S. 265), and she may 
 disavow the suit at any time ( Sayer on Costs, 84 ; Beames, 
 103). If the name of a married woman, while an infant, 
 has been inserted in a bill as co-plaintiff, she may, on 
 coming of age, have it struck out, but, semble, she should 
 be examined apart from her husband first ( Cooke v. Fryer, 
 
COSTS OF MARRIED WOMEN, ETC. 257 
 
 loc. cit). Although, therefore, the next friend is directly Liatilityof 
 liable to the defendants, the married woman herself may -woman, 
 also be liable* to costs (^Saye-rs on Costs, 84), to the extent 
 of her separate estate, but not unless her separate estate 
 was the subject matter of the suit (^Barlee v. Barlee, 1 S. 
 §- S. 100 ; Hogan v. Morgan, 1 Hog. 250). If the plain- 
 tiff is restrained from anticipation, however, the costs 
 cannot be charged on the future income {Moore v. Moore, 
 1 Col. 54), but may be paid out of arrears (ibid.). In 
 D' Oechsner \. Scott, 24 Beav. 239, the fund was settled 
 without power of anticipation, but the Master of the 
 Rolls gave the trustees, who were defendants, and against 
 whom the bill had been dismissed, costs out of the income 
 under the power of reimbursement in the settlement. 
 But a married woman cannot be taken in execution for 
 costs {Jones v. Champion, 1 Dick. 160). 
 
 It is now settled that the next friend of a married Next 
 woman must be a person of substance, and the Court will, carried 
 on the defendant's application, and evidence of the next woman, if 
 
 r- • -I 1 1 1 ™ poTerty, 
 
 friend's poverty, order the next triend to be changed, or must give 
 security for costs to be given (see ante, pp. 8, 9, and the f^™"*^ 
 cases there cited). Security may be obtained, although a 
 married woman and infants sue by the same next friend 
 {Pennington v. Alvin, \ S. &^ S. 265 ; Drinan v. Mannix, 
 3 Dr. §• W. 154), or the husband is a co-plaintiff, if he 
 is a formal party merely, and a bankrupt ( Smith v. Etches, 
 1 H. Sf 31. 558); or the next friend is himself a co- 
 plaintiff (Balgui/ V. Broadhurst, 2 W. R. 680). 
 
 A married woman may, by special leave, sue in forma a married 
 pauperis, without a next friend {Hind v. Whitmore, 2 K. ^""^^^^ 
 §• J. 458, and the cases there cited) ; and such leave may informSt 
 be obtained ex parte ( Wellesley v. Mornington, 2 W. R. (^XTa 
 514, 18 Jur. 552 ; In re Lancaster, 2 W. R. 337, 18 Jur. next 
 
 ,. _, „ friend. 
 
 229 ; Re Foster, 18 Beav. 525, overruling Fage v. Fage, 
 1 JV. R. 262), but not of course (see the cases cited above; 
 
 * And it has been said, primarily liable {Mitf. P^., 28, citing Turner v. 
 Turner, Stra. 709, 2 E^. Ca. Ah. 239). 
 
 S 
 
258 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 notwithstanding Coulsting v. Coulsting, 8 Beav. 463).* 
 The order, if obtained before the bill is filed, is entitled 
 in the matter of the applicant {In re Barnes, 10 W. R. 
 464). In Ex parte Hahewill, Z De G. M. &^ G. l\6, a, 
 married woman was allowed to present a petition for access 
 to her children, under Stat. 2 & 3 Vict. c. 54, in forma 
 pauperis, and without paying the £\ stamp required 
 by the orders of the Court (but, as to the latter point, 
 see Parkinson v. Chambers, 3 W. R. 34). In the same 
 case the order, though obtained ex parte, was held to be 
 not invalid from the suppression of the fact that the 
 petitioner had near relatives in good circumstances, there 
 being no evidence that any of them were willing to act as 
 her next friend. A married woman may obtain leave to 
 appeal in forma pauperis, though she sued by a next 
 friend below {Crouch v. Waller, 4: De G. 8f J. 43). A 
 peeress may sue in forma pauperis { Wellesley v. Wellesley, 
 16 Sim. 1). Some technical difficulty, however, occurs 
 when costs become payable to a married woman suing in 
 forma pauperis, as there is no person who can give a re- 
 ceipt for them (see Wellesley v. Wellesley, 1 De G. M. 
 §• G. 501, where the Lords Justices made an order for 
 payment of costs generally, and gave liberty to apply in 
 case of any dififtculty). Probably the costs would be paid 
 on the receipt of the plaintiff's solicitor. And see Att. 
 Gen. V. City of London, 3 Bro. C. C. 178, where the 
 Court, being uncertain whether certain defendants could 
 sue as a corporation, made an order for the payment of 
 their costs to their agent. 
 Where the If the next friend becomes insolvent in the course of 
 hecomer *^^ ^"^*' ^° Order may be obtained staying proceedings 
 insolvent until a new next friend is appointed, or the plaintiff ob- 
 course of talns an order to sue in forma pauperis { Wilton v. Hill, 
 the suit. 2 De G. M. §• G. 807, where, however, the former next 
 
 * A husband and wife may obtain an order of course to defend in forma 
 pauperis, in a suit respecting the wife's reversionary interest in land, and a 
 special motion was refused, but as affidavits had been unnecessarily filed in 
 opposition, without costs {Pitt v. Fitt, 1 8m. S/- G. app. xiv.) 
 
COSTS OF MARRIED WOMEN, ETC. 259 
 
 friend was discharged, but without prejudice to her lia- 
 bility already incurred). In J)' Oechsner v. Scott, 24 Beav. 
 239, which was a suit to charge the trustees of the plain- 
 tiff's settlement with a breach of trust, the bill was dis- 
 missed with costs, and the next friend having taken the 
 benefit of the Insolvent Act after taxation, the Court 
 gave the defendants, the trustees, their costs out of a 
 balance in the hands of the receiver belonging to the 
 plaintiff, and then made an order similar to that made in 
 TVilton V. Hill, loc. cit. 
 If the next friend is changed, the former next friend Where the 
 
 must give security for the costs already incurred : as to p^tfnend 
 ° •' _ _ •' ' IS changed. 
 
 which, and the proper security to be given, see ante, p. 9. 
 
 Where the nest friend of a married woman has died, where the 
 the proper order is that she appoint a new next friend "f^tfrifi"! 
 within a limited time, or in default the bill be dismissed 
 {Barlee v. Barlee, 1 S. ^ S. 100). In the case cited, the 
 Court further directed, that in event of the bill being dis- 
 missed, the costs of the defendants, who were the plain- 
 tiff's trustees, as between solicitor and client, should be 
 paid out of a balance in court belonging to the plaintiff 
 for her separate use, and that the residue of the fund 
 should be paid to the plaintiff. 
 
 "Where a married woman employed solicitors to prose- In what 
 cute a suit relating to her separate property, and promised gg^^rate 
 in writing to pay their bills, but without referring to her property of 
 separate property, it was held that that property was ^oman 
 liable for payment of the bills {Murray v. Barlee, 3 My. j,^ ^^^'^f> 
 §• K. 209, affirming s. c. 4 Sim. 82). But where the solicitor's 
 instructions, though in writing, related to suits on behalf ^^l^^ 
 of the children of the married woman, whose husband was 
 a lunatic, in which suits the mother had no interest, and 
 to which she was not a party, it was held that her sepa- 
 rate estate was not liable for the costs {Re Pugh, 17 Beav. 
 336). And see, generally, as to charging the separate 
 estate of a married woman, Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 3 
 Drew. 165 ; Johnson v. Gallagher, 9 W. R. 506. The 
 
 8 2 
 
260 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 Costs of 
 litigation 
 between 
 husband 
 and wife. 
 
 Where 
 husband 
 and wife 
 sue as co- 
 plaintiffs, 
 or defend 
 jointly. 
 
 mere fact of business having been done relating to the 
 separate property of a married woman vested in trustees is 
 not sufficient to make that property directly liable to the 
 attorney {Callow v. Howie, I De G. 8f S. 531) ; though it 
 may be so indirectly through the trustee's right of reim- 
 bursement ( Worrall v. Harford, 8 Ves. 4 ; Turner v. 
 Letts, 20 Beav. 185). 
 
 In Vansittart v. Vansittart, 4 K. 8f J. 62, which was a 
 suit for specific performance of an agreement for separa- 
 tion between husband and wife, Y. C. Wood said that a 
 case between husband and wife was not a case for costs, 
 and allowed a demurrer by the husband without costs. 
 But in TValrond v. Walrond, Johns. 18, the Vice-Chan- 
 cellor seems to have altered his opinion, and allowed a 
 demurrer to a similar bill with costs ; and see the obser- 
 vations of L. J. Knight Bruce, in Vansittart v. Vansittart, 
 on appeal, 2 De G. 8f J. 249,258; and Lampert v. Lampert, 
 1 Ves. Junr. 121, where costs were given to a wife against 
 her husband. The next friend of a married woman, 
 petitioner, was ordered to pay the costs occasioned by 
 personal charges against her husband in a petition under 
 the Trustee Act (Re Wills' Trusts, 3 N. R. 107). In a 
 suit by a married woman to administer the estate of a 
 testator, and enforce her equity to a settlement against 
 her husband, who was bankrupt, and his assignees, the 
 husband was allowed costs, though a debtor to the estate 
 (Rotherham v. Battson, 2 Sm. ^ G. app. viii.) ; and in 
 Green v. Otte, 2 L. J. 123, the husband was allowed costs 
 as between solicitor and client. In a suit to foreclose a 
 mortgage vested in trustees for the separate use of a 
 married woman, the husband, who was made a defendant, 
 was held entitled to costs out of the fund {Dillon v. 
 McCarthy, 2 Ir. Eq. R. 192). 
 
 Where husband and wife sue as co-plaintiffs, the suit 
 is the husband's only, and he has the sole control over 
 it {Hope V. Fox, 1 J. ^ H. 45Q) ; and, therefore, he is 
 solely liable for the costs on the one hand {Bradbury 
 V. Shaioe, 14 Jur. 1042) ; and, on the other hand, if 
 
COSTS OF MAUTJIED WOMEN, ETC. 261 
 
 costs become payable, they are ordered to be paid to the 
 husband, and his receipt alone is sufficient ( ^e^. 95). iSo, 
 also, where husband and wife are defendants, and defend 
 jointly {Orange v. Plckford, Set. 88); and although the 
 costs become payable in respect of the dismissal of the 
 bill, so far as it seeks to charge the separate estate of the 
 ■wife {JJ'riffhf V. Chard, 4t Drew. 702). And, therefore, 
 in the case last cited, it was held that a set-off arose of 
 the costs so payable against other payments directed to 
 be made by the husband. Upon the death of the bus- "Where the 
 band, when he and his wife are suing as co-plaintiffs in her ^ies^'^'^'^ 
 right, the widow may elect whether to continue the suit pending 
 or not. If she does not proceed, the suit is considered as 
 abated, and she is not liable for the costs {Mitf. PI. [59]), 
 which are consequently lost. But if she takes any step 
 in the suit after her husband's death, she makes herself 
 liable for the costs from the commencement {ibid. [60] ; 
 Anon. 3 Atk. 726; Anon. 2 Verni 197; Backhouse v. 
 Middleton, Freem. 133 ; Parry v. Juxon, 3 Ch. Rep. 40 ; 
 Parrott v. Randall, Cary, 70). AVhere a decree had been 
 made after the death of the husband, though the fact was 
 unknown to the defendants, for payment of costs to ihem 
 by the husband, and the wife took out a summons for 
 service of the decree on certain parties, she was held to 
 have adopted the suit, and the decree, though passed and 
 entered, was, on motion by the defendants, varied, by 
 ordering the costs to be paid by the wife {Mills v. Barlow, 
 11 W. R. 351, 1 N. R. 412), On the other hand, if costs 
 have been ordered to be paid to the husband, and he dies 
 before payment, the wife is entitled to them by survivor- 
 ship {^Coppin V. 2 P. W. 496). 
 
 Where a suit by a feme sole abates by her marriage. Where a 
 the bill is dismissed without costs, in default of her hus- pj^^^^^^'' 
 band reviving {ante, p. 56). If the husband revives, and marries. 
 obtains a decree with costs, he will be entitled to costs 
 from the commencement, except those of the bill of 
 revivor {Durhaine\. Knight, 1 Vern, 318) ; or, conversely, 
 
262 COSTS AFFECTING PAETIOULAE PERSONS. 
 
 Where tlie 
 husband 
 and wife 
 defend 
 
 The 
 
 husband 
 does not 
 pay costs 
 for his 
 wife's 
 fraud. 
 
 Costs of 
 wife in- 
 sisting on 
 her equity 
 to a settle- 
 ment. 
 
 Costs in a 
 suit of 
 husband 
 
 becomes liable to them. Where the wife sued out a sub- 
 poena, as single, being then married, it was held that the 
 husband and wife [qu. the husband alone] must pay costs 
 {Hastings v. Jugges, Gary, 36 ; Piers v. Cawse, ibid. 98). 
 In Barry v. Woodham, 1 F. §• C. 538, husband and 
 wife living apart, and defending separately, were allowed 
 separate sets of costs, there being no evidence as to the 
 grounds of their separation ; and in Times v, Negus, 3 Y. 
 §• C. 90, the husband had to pay costs, and the wife got 
 no costs; and see Grighy v. Cox, 1 Fes. 517. But in 
 Garey v. Whittingham, 5 Beav. 268, where the husband 
 and wife, who lived apart, were made defendants in re- 
 spect of the wife's share of a residue, and answered sepa- 
 rately, they were held entitled to one set of costs only. 
 Trom a report of the same case at an earlier stage (1 S. §• 
 S. 163), it appears that the husband first answered sepa- 
 rately, stating that he had no control over his wife, and 
 being attached for want of his wife's answer, he was 
 discharged, and an order was made for the wife to answer 
 separately, and indemnify her husband in respect of costs ; 
 and see Barry v. Cane, 3 Mad. 472. 
 
 The husband will not, it seems, in equity, be made re- 
 sponsible in costs for his wife's fraud. ' I do not know of 
 any case in this Court, where a feme covert has been guilty 
 of a fraud solely, without the husband, and where he has no 
 benefit at all from it, that he should suffer ; it would be 
 extremely hard that he should pay costs ; I know of no 
 precedent, nor do I believe that the Court would do it ' 
 (per Lord Hardwicke, Cotton v. Luttrel, 1 Atk. 452). 
 The question in this ca;se, however, was respecting the 
 admissibility of the husband's evidence. 
 
 Where a married woman, defendant, insisted upon her 
 equity to a settlement, and the Court gave her a moiety 
 of the fund, her costs were deducted from the fund before 
 division {Archer v. Gardner, C. P. C. 340). 
 
 In a suit by a husband against his wife, to have a settle- 
 ment rectified, and the income paid to him during their 
 
COSTS OF PAUPERS. 263 
 
 joint lives, the costs of the husband of that suit, and of an against 
 
 unsuccessful suit by the wife in the Ecclesiastical Court, ^"^ ^^'^• 
 
 were allowed him out of the accumulated income, but the 
 
 wife, who was living in adultery, and set up a different 
 
 trust from what it really was, got no costs (Ball v. 
 
 Montgomery, 2 Ves. Junr. 19fi,4 Bro. C. C. 339). 
 
 A bill by a widower to be relieved against a bond Costs in 
 
 given by his deceased wife before marriage, and concealed ^^^ ^^^jf 
 
 from him, was dismissed, as consideration was positively ^^^ wife's 
 
 1 . . 1 . , death. 
 
 sworn to, and with costs, as the concealment was at the 
 
 wife's request, and he was her administrator [Blanchet v. 
 
 Foster, 2 Ves. 264). The husband, however, was suing 
 
 in his own right, and not as an administrator. 
 
 Section IX. — Costs of Paupers. 
 The following is extracted from the notes to 7 Cons. Wto may 
 
 SU.6 or 
 
 Ord. r. 8, in Morgan^ s Ch. Acts and Orders: — defend m 
 
 ' The 11 Henry VII., c. 12, relating to actions in /»''»« 
 
 , . • 1 in pauperis. 
 
 forma pauperis, appues only to actions at law ; but Lourts 
 of Equity have so far adopted the principle of that Act 
 as to admit persons who can themselves (^Wilkinson v. 
 Belsher, 2 Bro. C. C. 270) swear that they are not worth 
 £5 in the world, their wearing apparel and the subject 
 matter of the suit excepted [Allen v. McPherson, 5 Beav. 
 469), to sue and defend in forma pauperis (Agckbourn's 
 Ch. Br. 5th edition, p. 517, and Spencer y. Bryant, 11 
 Ves. 49). The £S means £5 available for the suit 
 \Dresser v. Morton, 2 Phil. 286). A party in possession 
 and enjoyment of property the subject of the suit, worth 
 £140 and £\0 a year, ought not to be permitted to sue 
 in forma pauperis ( Taprell v. Taylor, 9 Beav. 493 ; 
 Butler V. Gardener, 12 Beav. 525 ; and see Burry Port 
 Company v. Bowser, 26 L. J. ch, 319) ; nor an oflScer on 
 
264 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 What pro- 
 ceedings 
 mny be 
 taken in 
 formd 
 pauperis. 
 
 half-pay, though he may have passed through the In- 
 solvent Court {Boddington v. Woodley, 5 Beav. 555) ; nor 
 a person who oiFers to redeem a mortgage (^Fowler v. 
 Davies, 16 Sim. 182); and it is not enough that he should 
 swear that he has only £5, except &c., " after payment of 
 his just debts" {Perry v. Walker, 1 Coll. 229). An 
 executor, even though without assets, cannot sue or defend 
 in forma pauperis {Oldfieldy. Cobhett, 1 Ph. 613, s. c. 
 before the Coilrt below,* 1 Coll. 169, 2 Beav. 444, 3 
 Beav. 432), unless possibly where he sues or defends also 
 in his own right ; see the cases cited in Fowler v. Davies, 
 ubi sup. ; Oldfield v. Cobbett, ubi sup. ; Bayly v. Bayly, 1 1 
 Beav. 256 t; Fverson v. Matthews, 3 W. R. 159 ; Flattery 
 V. Anderson, 11 Ir. Eq. Rep. 586; and Parkinson v. 
 Chambers, 24 L. J. ch. 47, 3 W. R. 343, where an 
 administratrix having a beneficial interest was on special 
 application admitted to sue in that form (see also Rogers 
 V. Hooper, 1 W. R. 474) : and in general the same rule 
 applies to all persons filling representative characters (see 
 St. Victor V. Devereux, 6 Beav. 584 ; and Paradice v. 
 Sheppard, 1 Dick. 136). A creditor of a joint stock 
 company in course of being wound up may, on the usual 
 affidavit, be allowed to sue in forma pauperis (Re Ii ish 
 Land Improvement Society, ex parte Fry, 1 Dr. §■ S. 
 318).' 
 
 As to married women suing in forma pauperis, see ante, 
 pp. 257, seq. ; and as to the next friend of infants, see 
 ante, p. 253. 
 
 ' A person may appeal (Bland v. Lamb, 2 J. &^ W. 
 402 ; Crouch v. Waller, 4 De G. ^ J. 43), bring a bill of 
 review (Fitton v. Macclesfield, 1 Vern. 263), be examined 
 pro interesse suo {James v. Dore, Dick. 728), present a 
 
 * In this case V. C. Knight Bruce held that a defendant in contempt, 
 though sued as executor, might apply in formd pauperis, for the limited 
 purpose of clearing his contempt. 
 
 t It appears from this case that an executor may have the benefit of the 
 7th rule of Stat. 1 Wm. IV. c. 36, s. 15. 
 
COSTS OF PAUPERS. 265 
 
 petition under the Trustee Relief Act {Re Money, 13 
 Bedv. 109), or sue as a creditor of a joint stock company 
 being wound up (i?e Irish Land Improvement Society, ex 
 parte Fry, 1 Dr. ^- Sm. 318) in forma pauperis; ' or, it 
 may be added, present a petition under the Custody of 
 Infants Act, 2 & 3 Vict., c. 5-1 {Ex parte Hahewill, 3 De 
 G. M. Si G. 116). 
 
 If at any time pending the suit the party suing or A party 
 defending in forma pauperis becomes of ability to sue, or (jispauper- 
 to defend himself, the Court will dispauper him {Perry v. ^^ »" . 
 Walker, 1 Coll. 229 ; and see Tunstall v. Freeney, 1 Coll. of ability 
 234, n. ; BartleU v. Smith, ibid. ; Clarke v. Pyke, ibid.) ; ^y^'Jf/'' 
 but under circumstances he may be readmitted to sue or himself: 
 defend in forma pauperis (1 Smith's Ch. Pr. 871). The 
 mere possession of property, however, is not sufficient, if 
 it is wrongful {Perry v. Walker, \ Y. ^ C. C. C. 676) ; 
 nor will the circumstance of the pauper having sued 
 another person at law not in forma pauperis {ibid.), or the 
 pauper being in regular employment {ibid.) be sufficient. 
 If it is made to appear to the Court that the party was 
 not in fact ' a pauper ' when he made his affidavit, the 
 order wUl be discharged with costs {Romilly v. Grint, 2 
 Beav. 186; and see Goldsmith v. Goldsmith, 5 Ha. 123). 
 And as no exception of debts should be made on making 
 the application to sue or defend in forma pauperis (see 
 supra), an affidavit that the party is largely indebted, or 
 in embarrassed eircumstances, is no answer to the applica- 
 tion to dispauper {Romilly v. Grint, loc. cit. ; Perry v. 
 Walker, 1 Coll. 229). The circumstance of a subscrip- 
 tion having been made to help the plaintiff in the suit, 
 however objectionable on the ground of maintenance, is 
 no ground for dispaupering {Corbett v. Corbett, 16 Ves. 
 409). Where a defendant obtained a reference, under 
 1 Wm. IV., c. 36, whether he was unable by reason of 
 poverty to put in his answer, and the Master having re- 
 ported he was not, the defendant obtained an order of 
 course to sue in forma pauperis, suppressing the fact of 
 
266 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 the reference, the order was discharged for irregularity 
 
 (NbwellY. Whiiiaker, 6 Beav. 407). But it is too late 
 
 three years after the order, and after the defendants have 
 
 answered, and the plaintiff has filed replication, to move 
 
 to discharge for irregularity an order for the plaintiff to 
 
 sue in forma pauperis {^Parkinson v. Hanbury, 4 De G. 
 
 M. §• G. 508). 
 
 or if he A pauper who behaves in a vexatious and improper 
 
 his suit or manner in his conduct of the suit or his defence may be 
 
 defence in dispaupered ( ^Fttffwer V. Mears, 3 Sim. 12V; Daintreey. 
 
 avexatious i^ V ^^^ i t> ti7 ti ■• ^ 
 
 manner: Uaynes, 12 Jur. 594 ; and see Ferry v. yvalker, 1 Coll. 
 229). But improper or vexatious conduct in a former 
 suit is no ground for dispaupering ( Corhett v. Corbett, 1 6 
 Ves. 409). A pauper's solicitor may also be ordered per- 
 sonally to pay the costs of any irregular proceedings 
 (Brown v. Dawson, 2 Hoy, 76) ; and see 7 Cons. Ord. 
 r. 11. 
 or remu- A party may also be dispaupered for giving remunera- 
 
 counsel or *^°^ ^° ^^^ Counsel or solicitor, or making any agreement 
 solicitor. for recompensing them (7 Cons. Ord. r. 9). 
 Pauper Where costs are ordered to be paid to a party suing or 
 
 dives costs, defending in forma pauperis, such costs are to be taxed 
 as dives costs, unless the Court shall otherwise direct 
 (40 Cons. Ord. r. 5). 
 
 This order renders it unnecessary to refer to the 
 numerous cases on the question, which before the order 
 was much debated, what costs a successful pauper should 
 receive. 
 No remu- ' After an admittance to sue or defend in forma pauperis, 
 b'^^tak n*" ^° ^^^' P^°^*' °^ reward shall be taken of the pauper by 
 of the pan- any counsel or solicitor, for the despatch of the pauper's 
 couns"^l^or business, during the time it shall depend in Court, and he 
 solicitor. shall continue in forma pauperis ; nor shall any agree- 
 ment be made for any recompense, or reward afterwards. 
 And any person offending herein shall be deemed guilty 
 of a contempt of Court; and the party admitted who 
 shall give any such fee or reward, or make any such 
 
COSTS OF PAUPERS. 267 
 
 agreement, shall be from thenceforth dispaupered, and 
 
 not be afterwards admitted again in that suit to sue or 
 
 defend in forma pauperis^ (7 Cons. Ord. r. 9). 
 
 In Parkinson v. Chambers, 3 W. R. 34, it was held that What costs 
 
 the stamp fee of £l, payable on drawing up the order to aSJ'by 
 
 sue in forma pauperis, could not be remitted, as the Paupers. 
 , . ™ Ml , ■, ' -1 1 ■ Costs of 
 
 plaintitt was not a pauper till the order was made, and it stamp. 
 
 could not be returned ; but see Ex parte Hakewill, 3 De 
 G. M. ^ G. 116. In Ballard v. Catling, 2 K. 606, it Where the 
 was held that an order of course to sue in forma pauperis, not^teen^ 
 not served, was no protection against costs, on a bill being served. 
 dismissed for want of prosecution. But it seems not to be 
 true, as a general proposition, that such an order is in- 
 operative until served, where at least there is no mala 
 fides in withholding it, and no step in the cause has been 
 taken inconsistent with it ( Church v. Marsh, 2 Ha. 652). 
 Where the order has not been served, it is in the discre- 
 tion of the Court to give costs to the pauper or order him 
 to pay them as the case may be, but prima facie he will where 
 be entitled to the benefit of the order {ibid.). If notice o=^'i«''^'s 
 of motion to dismiss for want of prosecution has been obtained 
 served on a pauper defendant, he cannot apply to sue in ^r^ce If" 
 forma pauperis without paying the costs of the motion notice of 
 {Smith V. Pawson, 2 Be G. ^ S. 490). °'°'''°°' 
 
 A plaintiff suing in forma pauperis is not allowed to ^ pamper 
 amend by leaving out parties without paying their costs amend by 
 {Wilkinsons. Belsher, 2 Bro. C. C. 272); nor can he ptnies,™' 
 move ex parte to dismiss his bill generally without costs dismiss his 
 {Parkinson v. Hanbury, 4 De G. M. §• G. 508 ; Pearson without 
 
 V. Belsher, 3 Bro. C. C. 87). P^y'^S 
 
 costs 
 
 A party, who during the pendency of the suit has pa„per 
 
 been admitted to sue or defend in forma, pauperis, will, if li^^l^ ^""^ 
 
 , T T costs of 
 
 the merits so require it, be ordered to pay costs up to the proceed- 
 
 time when he became a pauper {Prince Albert v. Strange, 5i"e^^eram7 
 13 Jur. 507 ; and see Anon. Mos. 66 ; Smith v. Pawson, pauper., 
 2 De G. 8f S. 490) ; and may be attached for non-pay- 
 ment of costs under an order made before he was a 
 
268 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 Where a 
 defendant 
 is unable 
 to answer 
 by reason 
 of poverty, 
 Court may 
 assign a 
 solicitor 
 and 
 counsel. 
 
 The Lord 
 Chancellor 
 may assign 
 solicitor to 
 pauper de- 
 fendant 
 confined 
 in the 
 
 pauper, without being dispaupered {Davenport v. Daven- 
 port, 1 PA. 124). The Court has no jurisdiction, it seems, 
 under Stat. 1 Wm. IV., c. 36, s. 15, r. 17, or otherwise, 
 to discharge a pauper prisoner in custody for non-payment 
 o{ costs (Snowball v. Dixon, 2 De G. §• <S'. 9), unless they 
 do not exceed £20 in amount (see post, ch. viii. sect, i.) ; 
 but as to the costs' of a pauper's contempt in not putting 
 in his answer, see post, p. 269. 
 
 Where a defendant is brought up in custody for want 
 of his answer, and makes oath in Court (see rule 6 of 
 Stat. 1 Wm. IV., c. 36, s. 15) that he is unable by reason 
 of poverty to employ a solicitor to put in his answer, the 
 Court, if not satisfied of the truth of that allegation, may 
 direct an enquiry as to the truth thereof, and may appoint 
 a solicitor to conduct such enquiry on the behalf of such 
 defendant; and if it is ascertained by means of such 
 enquiry, or if the Court is satisfied without such enquiry, 
 that such defendant is unable by reason of poverty to 
 employ a solicitor to put in his answer, the Court may 
 assign a solicitor and counsel for such defendant to enable 
 him to put in his answer (12 Cons. Ord. r. 4 ; and see 
 Stat. 23 & 24 Vict., c. 149, s. 4 ; and rule 6 of Stat. 
 1 Wm. IV., c. 36, s. 15). 
 
 An order of course for a defendant to defend in forma 
 pauperis obtained after a report by a Master that he was 
 not unable, by reason of poverty, to answer, was discharged 
 as irregular (Nowell v. Whittaker, 6 Beav. 407). The 
 Court will not give a defendant the benefit of this rule, if 
 the application is delayed, so as to prejudice the interests 
 of the plaintifi", who is proceeding regularly to have the 
 bill taken pi-o confesso (Gee v. Cottle, 3 My. §- Cr. 
 180). 
 
 The 2nd section of Stat. 23 & 24 Vict., c. 149, directs 
 that the solicitor to the suitors' fund, or other officer of 
 the Court, to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, shall 
 visit the Queen's Prison quarterly, and examine the 
 prisoners confined there for contempt, and report to the 
 
COSTS OF PAUPERS. 269 
 
 Lord Chancellor,* who may assign a solicitor to any such Queen's 
 
 prisoner, not only for defending him i7i forma pauperis, ^[^'™'' °° 
 
 but generally for taking such steps on his behalf as the ofthe 
 
 nature of the case may require, and make any such orders the'suitors' 
 
 as the Lord Chancellor was empowered to make by the Fee Fund. 
 seventh rule of the old Contempt Act (1 Wm. lY., c. 36, 
 ■ s. 15).t 
 
 The rule referred to empowered the Court to order, that The pau- 
 
 the costs of the contempt of any such prisoner should be of con.'^"^ 
 
 paid out of the interest and dividends of the securities tempt may 
 
 standing to the account of the Suitors' Fee Fund, or any ofthe 
 
 cash standing to that account, and to direct any such ^^^*™® , 
 
 '^ . ' . . •' Fee Fund. 
 
 jjrisoner to be discharged. Provided that if any such 
 
 defendant became entitled to any funds out of such cause, 
 
 the same should be applied, under the direction of the 
 
 Court in the first instance, to the reimbursement of the 
 
 Suitors' Fund. Rule 17 empowers the Court in any case 
 
 not specially provided for to discharge the prisoner upon 
 
 any such terms, and making, if the Court shall see fit, any 
 
 costs in the cause. But this rule does not enable the Qy. 
 
 Court to make the costs of a pauper's contempt in not ^Jjp*^™ ^ 
 
 answering costs in the cause, such case being specially maybe 
 
 provided for {Robey v. Whitewood, 1 Beav. 54 ; and see .(rithouT*^ 
 
 Allihone v. Jones, 13 L. J. ch. 408 ; Snowball v. Dixon, payment 
 
 costs of 
 2 De G. Sf S. 9). But in Bennett v. Chudleigh, 2 Y. 8f contempt. 
 
 C. C. C. 164, the same judge who afterwards decided 
 
 Snowball v. Dixon held that the Court could, under either 
 
 its general jurisdiction (but see Murphy v. Oldis, 2 Mol. 
 
 475), or this rule, discharge a pauper prisoner out of 
 
 custody without payment of the costs of his contempt. 
 
 The 6th section of Stat. 23 & 24 Vict., c. 149, further ^^ &^24^^ 
 
 • * I. e. the Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or Lords Commissioners, or the 
 Lords Justices only (sec. 13). 
 
 f Upon the report of the solicitor to the Suitors' Fee Fund, a solicitor 
 may he assigned without an application to the Court {Layton v. Mortimore, 
 2 De G. F. &■ J. 353)- But the Court cannot assign counsel or solicitor to the 
 defendant on the application of the plaintiff {Garrod\. Holden, i Beav. 
 246 ; and see Watkins v. Parker, Z M. ^ C. 370). 
 
 sec. 6. 
 
270 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 The Sui- 
 tors' Fee 
 Fund 
 
 to be reim- 
 bursed. 
 
 Proceed- 
 ings in a 
 second 
 suit by a 
 pauper 
 may be 
 stayed 
 until pay- 
 ment of the 
 costs of a 
 first suit. 
 
 provides that the solicitor to the suitors' fund shall 
 make the necessary and proper payments out of pocket 
 which may be requisite in the proceedings taken on be- 
 half of the prisoners and defendants under the order of 
 the Court, and shall be allowed the same as part of his 
 disbursements in respect of the suitors' fund.* Provided 
 that if any such prisoner or defendant shall be or become 
 entitled to any funds in the cause, such funds shall be 
 applied in the repayment to the suitors' fund of the sums 
 expended on his behalf as aforesaid. Provided, also, that 
 in case any prisoner or defendant shall become entitled to 
 any costs in any such suit or proceeding, such costs shall 
 be received by the solicitor to the suitors' fund and paid 
 by him into the suitorg' fund. 
 
 Where a pauper files a second bill after allowing his 
 first bill to be dismissed for want of prosecution, pro- 
 ceedings may be restrained until the costs of the first 
 suit are paiid (^Calvert v. Booth, 4 F. §• C. 514 ; Brook v. 
 Alcock, I Sm. Ch. Pr. 874). And a second suit in the 
 name of another plaintiff, who was a defendant to the first 
 suit, but for the same purpose, with colourable variations, 
 was stayed in like manner {Elsam v. Alcock, ibid.). But 
 in TVild v. Hobson, 2 V. Sf B. 105, Lord Eldon said that 
 proceedings in a second suit by persons suing in forma, 
 pauperis would only be stayed in case of vexation. 
 
 Costs of 
 reference 
 as to title, 
 where the 
 
 Section X. — Costs of Purchasers under Decree, and 
 of Opening Biddings. 
 
 A purchaser of property sold under a decree of the 
 Court will be entitled to the costs- of the motion for a 
 reference as to title, and of the reference itself, if the 
 
 » In Ward v. Woodcock, 5 L. T. n. s. 816, it was held that the Court had 
 no jurisdiction under this section to order the plaintiff's costs to be paid out 
 of the Suitors' Fee Fund on the discharge of a pauper defendant from cus- 
 tody for the breach of an injunction, 
 
COSTS OF PUECHASERS UNDER DECREE, ETC. 271 
 
 title is made out on grounds not appearing in the abstract title is 
 {Fielder v. Higginson, 2 V. §• B. 142). And he will ^°°^- 
 not pay costs if the title proves good according to the ab- 
 stract {Flower v. Hartopp, 8 Beav. 199 ; Holland v. King, 
 20 L. T. 123, s. c. 1 W. R. 80, where the marginal note 
 is wrong), unless his objections were frivolous ( Thorp v. 
 Freer, 4 Mad. 466 ; Peers v. Snegd, 17 Beav. 151). The 
 report of Camden v. Benson, 1 K. 671, which states that 
 the Court held the purchaser to be entitled to his costs, 
 appears to be inaccurate (8 Beav. 200). There is nothing 
 in the circumstance of the purchaser being a defendant 
 to take the case out of the general rule {Holland v. King, 
 loc. cit., where it was stated that the purchaser was well 
 acquainted with the title). 
 
 T\Tiere the purchaser asked for specific performance of Wiere the 
 the contract with compensation, he obtained it, on appeal, fg^com-^* 
 with CQsts both in the Court below and the Appeal Court pletedwith 
 {Leyland v. Blingworth, 2 De G. F. 8f J. 248). S™' 
 
 The purchaser is not allowed the costs of a motion to Costs of 
 
 pay the purchase monies into court ( Christian v. Chambers, ™V°b'e ° 
 
 4 Ha. 307) ; and where he is in default he will have to purchase 
 
 pay them (1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 1015). Where the notice also Court; 
 
 asked that one purchaser might be substituted for another to suhsti- 
 
 on the usual affidavit of no underhand bargain, the costs p"Ju,ohasCT 
 
 not being increased were not ordered to be paid by the for 
 
 purchaser ( Christian v. Chambers, loc. cit.) ; but if such ' 
 
 application is made separately it would seem that the 
 
 second purchaser should bear the expenses of it. In to transfer 
 
 appHcations for transfer to the credit of a cause of pur- ^^^ie^^^ 
 
 chase monies paid into court by a pubKc company, in Piii<i ™to 
 
 . -, , 11 1 • Court hy a 
 
 future it will not be necessary to serve all the parties to public 
 
 the suit, and their costs will not be allowed against the ^°")^g°^ 
 
 company (per V. C. Wood, Fden v. Thompson, 4 N. R. credit of 
 
 87) ; though the practice has hitherto been the other way *^® °''"''®" 
 {ibid.). And see further as to the costs payable by com- 
 panies, ante, ch. v., sec. i. 
 
 A purchaser who has paid his money into court, but Costs of 
 
272 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 purchaser 
 on motion 
 for pay- 
 ment out 
 of pur- 
 chase 
 
 Costs of 
 comparing 
 abstract 
 with deeds. 
 
 Pur- 
 chaser's 
 cost of 
 settling 
 convey- 
 ance in 
 chambers. 
 
 Costs of 
 proceed- 
 ings neces- 
 sary to 
 complete 
 the con- 
 veyance. 
 
 has not got his conveyance, is entitled to appear, and will 
 receive his costs of appearance when the money is dealt 
 with {Noble v. Stow, 30 Beav. 272) ; secus, if he has got 
 his conveyance {Barton v. Lautour, 18 Beav. 526). 'The 
 practice is to draw up the order with the purchaser's con- 
 sent, in which case he is entitled to his costs of appearance, 
 or on proper evidence that he has been served with notice 
 and has got his conveyance ' {Noble v. Stow, loc. cit). 
 
 Where title deeds are in the hands of persons residing 
 in different parts of the country, the vendor must (in the 
 absence of special condition) bear the expense of the 
 purchaser sending a clerk to compare the abstract with 
 them {Hughes v. Wynne, 8 Sim. 85, s. c. affd. 1 Jur. 720). 
 But a country solicitor should not, it would seem, be 
 allowed the costs of journeys to town to examine abstracts 
 {Re Tryon, 7 Beav. 496). 
 
 The general rule is that where the decree contains a 
 direction for settling the conveyances in chambers in case 
 the parties differ, the purchaser pays the costs of his own 
 attendances, unless a special case is made {Hodgson v. 
 Shaw, 16 L. J. 56, 11 Jur. 95). But where the estates 
 of an intestate, whose heir was an infant, were sold by the 
 Court, the costs of settling the conveyance came out of 
 the estate {Brown v. Lake, 15 L. J. ch. 34). 
 
 If any proceedings under the Trustee Act are necessary 
 in order to make a good conveyance, the vendor must, 
 it seems, bear the costs of them ; see Bradley v. Munton, 
 16 Beav. 294, where the contract provided that 'the costs 
 of surrender ' should be borne by the purchaser, and it 
 was held that the costs of procuring some person to 
 surrender by proceedings under the Trustee Act were 
 not included. Where the heiress at law, who was a 
 party to the suit, refused to acknowledge the deed, the 
 costs of the purchasers occasioned by such refusal, to- 
 gether with a sum paid to the heiress to induce her to 
 convey, were ordered to be paid out of the funds in court 
 {Billing V. Webb, I De G. Sf S. 716); and the funds 
 
COSTS OF PURCHASERS UNDER DECREE, ETC. 273 
 
 being insufficient for the payment of the costs of all parties, 
 the purchaser's costs were paid in priority {ibid.). But 
 where the purchaser was a defendant, no costs were given 
 of a petition to have a co-defendant, who refused to convey, 
 declared a trustee under the Trustee Act (Robinson v. 
 Wood, 5 Beav. 246). 
 
 Where the decision in chambers is against the title, or "Where the 
 it is too doubtful to be forced on a purchaser {Blosse v. theVur-'* 
 Lord Clanmorris, 3 Bl. 62), the purchaser is entitled to be '^^^^^^ ^^ 
 discharged with all his costs, charges, and expenses con- ^ith costs, 
 sequent on his becoming purchaser, and of the application, ™arges, 
 and of investigating the title (Att. Gen. v. Corporation of expenses. 
 Newark, 8 Sim. 71 ; Perkins v. Ede, 16 Beav. 268, where 
 the form of the usual order is given). The costs of the 
 purchaser obtaining his own counsel's opinion will be 
 included (Barton v. Dotvnes, 4 Ir. Eq. Rep. 607). If 
 there are funds in court the purchaser's costs will be 
 directed to be paid out of those funds (Reynolds v. Blake, 
 2 S. §• S. 117); but without prejudice to the question by 
 what fund they should be ultimately borne, if there are 
 more than one (Green v. Gascoyne, Set. 1209). Where 
 there is no fund in court, the purchaser will be entitled 
 to his costs from the plaintiff personally, without prejudice 
 to the question how they should be ultimately borne 
 (Smith V. Nelson, 2 S. ^ S. 557); although the plaintiff 
 is only a pecuniary legatee (Berry v. Johnson, 2 Y. 8f C. 
 564). Where the Master had reported against the title to 
 one lot, the purchaser of others under the same title was 
 discharged with his costs without further enquiry (Lewis v. 
 Leicis, 9 L. J. ch. 176). Where there had been great delay, 
 and there was little hope of completing the title within a 
 reasonable time, also, the purchaser was discharged with 
 costs (Eraser v. Wood, 8 Beav. 339). Where the title 
 had been found bad, but the purchaser was nevertheless 
 attached for non-payment of the purchase money, the con- 
 tract was cancelled, with costs against the solicitor who 
 acted for both parties (Bromage v. Davies, 4 Jur. n. s. 682). 
 
 T 
 
274 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 So where In like manner, if a purchaser is discharged on the 
 
 ehasCT'^is g'^ound of the vendor's misrepresentation {Lachlan v. 
 
 discharged Reynolds, Kay, 52), or of want of jurisdiction in the Court 
 
 couXrtl to sell ( Calvert v. Godfrey, 6 Beav. 97), he will be entitled 
 
 ground. ^q his costs, charges, and expenses. In Lechmere v. 
 
 Brasier, 2 J. ^ W. 287, the purchaser was discharged on 
 
 account of an error in the decree, though the parties were 
 
 proceeding to rectify it ; the costs, however, were waived, 
 
 but it seems that the purchaser should have had them 
 
 ( Sugd. V. §• P. 108). But where the defect in the suit was 
 
 already cured before the petition came on, the purchaser 
 
 was not discharged, and the costs were reserved ( Sherwood 
 
 y. Beveridge, 3 De G. §• -S". 425). However, the purchaser 
 
 will not be entitled to the costs of investigating the title, 
 
 where he is reheved on any such collateral ground 
 
 (Magennis v. Fallon, 2 Moll. 592 ; Mackrell v. Hunt, 2 
 
 Mad. 34 n.). 
 
 The pur- Where the purchaser had resold at a profit, and on 
 
 notreeover examination of the deeds the title proved bad, it was held 
 
 the costs of that he could not recover at law from the vendors the 
 
 purchaser costs of resale, or the costs paid to the sub-purchasers 
 
 from the (Walker v. Moore, 10 ^. &• C. 416). 
 
 Tendors. ^ , 
 
 Practice Where a resale is ordered, on the purchaser making 
 
 where a default in completing, the practice is not to discharge the 
 ordered on purchaser, but he is ordered to make good the deficiency 
 chas^"^' t ^^ price, and pay the costs of the resale in case a less 
 com- price should be obtained on it (Harding v. Harding, 4 My. 
 
 P®""?- ^ (7. 514; Gray v. Gray, 1 Beav. 199, s. c. sub nom. 
 Saunders v. Gray,'^ My. §• C. 515, n. ; and see Set. 1211). 
 Costs of Where the biddings are reopened, the purchaser under 
 
 first pur- ^|jg gj-st sale is entitled to be paid all his costs, charges, 
 
 chaser ^ ' o ' 
 
 where the and expenses by the person openmg the biddings ( Watts 
 are opened. ^- ^«'''*«' ^ Bro. C. (7. 113 ; Watson v. Birch, ibid. 178 ; 
 
 Anon, 2 Ves. Junr. 286 ; Upton v. Earl Ferrers, 4 Ves. 
 
 700 ; Brooks v. Snaith, 3 V. Sf B. 144 ; Farlow v. 
 
 Weildon, 4 Mad. 460, n.) ; but the Court will not give 
 
 any particular directions as to allowing specific expenses 
 
COSTS OF EECEIVEES, ETC. 275 
 
 {Anon. 2 Ves: Junr. 286). The discharged purchaser, 
 hoTvever, is not entitled to the costs of investigating the 
 title where he has proceeded to do so before the order 
 confirming the sale {Digby v. Broivne, 1 Ir. Eq. R. 377). 
 
 The person on whose application the biddings are Costs of 
 opened, if he does not become the purchaser, will have cantTo" '' 
 his deposit returned, but will not in general be allowed °w^ *!"= 
 
 ■ 11 1 1 biddings. 
 
 his costs, though the estate is sold at a large advance on 
 the original price {Righy v. M' Namara, 6 Ves^ 466 ; 
 Lord Macclesfield v. Blake, 8 Ves. 214 ; Trefusis v. 
 Clinton, \ V. ^ B. 361). But where the applicant was 
 not merely speculating for his own advantage, but 
 opened the biddings for the benefit of the family, he may 
 be allowed his costs, if an advance is obtained ( Owen v. 
 Foulkes, 9 Ves. 348 ; West v. Vincent, 12 Ves. 6 ; 
 Chapman v. Fowler, 3 Ha. 577 ; Cuffe v. Young, 9 Ir. 
 Eq. R. 475), although the estate is insolvent, so that the 
 beneficiaries would not in fact derive any advantage 
 (Chapman v. Fowler, loc. cit.) ; and it is enough if the 
 applicant, though not one of the beneficiaries, or any 
 relation to them, opened the biddings at their request 
 ( Gravenor v. Mills, 9 Jur. 838). 
 
 Where the biddings were opened a second time after wtere the 
 the first resale, the person who first opened the biddings ^^^ opened 
 was held entitled to his costs of so doing from the person a second 
 on whose application they were opened the second time 
 {Bates V. Bonner, 6 Sim. 382). 
 
 Section XI. — Costs of Receivers, §-Ci 
 A receiver appointed by the Court is a mere officer of EeceiTei? 
 
 an officer of 
 
 the -Court {Parker w. Dunn, 8 Beav. 497; Morison v. theTouT 
 Morison, 7 De G. M. §• G. 214, 224, 226), and he ought and shonid 
 not ia general to present a petition or take any proceed- ^al appear 
 ings in the cause, but should apply to the plaintiff to do so P proceed- 
 
 T 2 ™^°' 
 
276 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 A receiver 
 entitled to 
 his costs, 
 charges, 
 and 
 expenses. 
 
 Eeceiver's 
 expenses 
 of services 
 under- 
 taken 
 without 
 the leave 
 of the 
 Court ; 
 
 defending 
 actions 
 ■without 
 leave. 
 
 (^Ireland t. Fade, 7 Beav. 55). And where he is served 
 with a petition in the cause, he should not appear, and 
 will get no costs of appearance if he does so {Herman v. 
 Dunbar, 23 Beav. 312). But where the receiver had in- 
 curred costs which the parties had long neglected to provide 
 for, he was allowed to petition for their payment {Ireland 
 V. Fade, loc. cit.). And in Richardson v. Ward, 6 Mad. 
 266, a receiver was allowed the costs of his own applica- 
 tion to be discharged on the ground of ill-health. 
 
 A receiver will be entitled out of the funds to his 
 costs, charges, and expenses properly incurred in the dis- 
 charge of his ordinary duties, or in extraordinary services 
 which have been sanctioned by the Court {Malcolm v. 
 O'Callaghan, 3 My. §• C. 52; Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 
 5 Ir. Fq. R. 525). And in Morison v. Morison, loc. cit., 
 which was a suit to administer West Indian estates, a 
 consignee appointed by the Court, who had become in 
 advance, was held entitled to repayment out of the corpus 
 of the estate in priority to the costs of the suit. The 
 poundage and expenses of passing the receiver's accounts 
 fall upon the tenant for life ( Shore v. Shore, 4 Drew. 5 1 0). 
 
 In Malcolm v. O^ Callaghan, loc. cit.. Lord Cottenham 
 seems to have held that the expenses of extraordinary 
 services undertaken by a receiver without the sanction of 
 the Court, should on that ground alone be refused ; but, 
 he added, that if those services resulted in a benefit, it 
 might be inequitable to allow the parties to reap the advan- 
 tage without reimbursing the expenses. In the case cited, 
 the expenses of journeys to and residence in Paris, for the 
 purpose of prosecuting (unsuccessful) suits there for the 
 recovery of parts of the testator's estate, were refused. 
 Where a receiver, without the leave of the Court, defended 
 an action arising out of a distress for rent made by him, 
 and compromised it on the terms of the plaintiff aban- 
 doning it, and each party bearing his own costs, he was 
 not allowed his costs {Swaby v. Dickon, 5 Sim. 629). 
 But where the defence was completely successful, the 
 
COSTS OF RECEIVERS, ETC. 277 
 
 extra expenses were allowed, thoiigh the receiver acted 
 without the leave of the Court {Brisiowe v. Needham, 
 2 Ph. 190). Again, the receiver of a lunatic's estate pro- 
 ceeding in a wrong form of action, which he was advised 
 to abandon, and adopting another form in which he suc- 
 ceeded, was refused the costs of the abandoned proceeding, 
 although the jNIaster reported that he had acted bond fide 
 {Ite Montgomery , 1 Moll. 419; and see Re Ormsby, 1 B. 
 §• B. 189). The receiver should not wait to apply for 
 leave to defend an action till just before trial {Anon. 6 
 Ves. 286). The personal authority of the beneficiaries to 
 incur expenses gives the receiver no lien on the estate 
 {Malcolm V. G' Callaglian,loc. cit.\ 
 
 ^Yhere a receiver had been irregular in bringing in his "Where a 
 accounts, he was ordered, on the application of an incum- -^^ default 
 brancer, whose charge he was directed to keep down, to 
 bring them in at stated times, and to pay the costs of the 
 application {Bertie v. Lord Abingdon, 8 Beav. 53). And 
 where the receiver makes default in paying into court a 
 balance certified to be due from him, he will have to pay 
 the costs of the application (see the practice in such cases, 
 stated in 1 Sm. Cli. Pr. 1037). The receiver of lease- 
 holds not paying the rent regularly, will have to pay the 
 costs of the landlord's application to proceed against him 
 for it {Walsh v. Walsh, 1 Ir. Eq. R. 209). On the other Costs of 
 hand, an application to remove a receiver for misconduct °*^^F P™" 
 
 . . . . ceedinga 
 
 was refused with costs, and the petitioner being insolvent, against 
 the receiver was allowed his costs, as between solicitor ™' 
 and client, out of the funds in his hands {Conrad v. 
 Hanmer, 9 Beav. 3). Where a receiver had been appointed 
 under a mistake, he was removed, but costs were not 
 given against him {Hunter v. Pring, 8 Ir. Eq. R. 102). 
 
 It is not the course of the Court, on motion that the motion 
 tenants may attorn to the receiver, to order them to pay ^}-'^^ ^ 
 
 •' y-y o N tenants 
 
 costs {Hobhouse y. Hollcombe, 2 De G. 8f S. 208). may 
 
 A person appointed receiver by will, of a testator's ^"°™^j.r 
 real estates, with a salary, is a proper party to a suit to appointed 
 
 by will. 
 
278 COSTS AFFECTINd PAETICULAK PERSONS. 
 
 administer those estates ( Consett v. Bell, 1 K §• C. C. C. 
 
 569). 
 Costs occa- It is the uniform practice to order those who have in- 
 inter- truded on a receiver appointed by the Court, to pay the 
 ference costs and expenses thereby occasioned {Lane v. Sterne, 
 eeiver. 10 W. R. 555 ; and see Tripp v. Bridgewater Sj^c. Canal 
 
 Company, 3 fF. R. 356). 
 
 Section XII. — Costs of and relating to Solicitors. 
 
 Where the Where a solicitor is sued in respect of fraudulent 
 a°^'art°'^t(f transactions, in which he has been mixed up in that 
 the suit. character, he cannot excuse himself from the payment of 
 costs on the grounds that he acted on his client's direc- 
 tions {Bennett v. Vade, 2 Atk. 324) ; especially if he 
 takes a benefit under the fraudulent instrument (ibid). 
 And where the solicitor was exonerated from culpability, 
 he was nevertheless left to bear his own costs, because he 
 had not acted with prudence {Harvey v. Mount, 8 Beav. 
 439, 452), So, where a solicitor, by mixing up his per- 
 sonal interests in his client's transactions, rendered an 
 investigation not unreasonable, the bill was dismissed 
 against him without costs, though it contained unproven 
 charges of fraud ( Tyler v. Tyler, 3 Beav. 550). A solicitor 
 may be made a party to the suit for the mere purpose of 
 having the costs paid by him, in a case of fraud, but in 
 that case only {Le Texier v. Margravine of Anspach, 
 15 Ves. 159); and the costs must be specifically prayed 
 against him {Marshall v. Sladden, 7 Ha. 428). If a suit 
 to set aside suspicious transactions with a solicitor fails on 
 some collateral ground, the bill will be dismissed without 
 costs {De Montmorency v. Devereux, 7 CI. §• F. 188, where 
 the defendant proved confirmation; Lord Clanricarde v. 
 Henning, 30 Beav. 175, where the bill was dismissed on 
 the ground of the lapse of time). A deed executed by a 
 client and cestui-que-trust for securing a solicitor trustee 
 
COST OF AND RELATING TO SOLICITORS. 279 
 
 his costs, to which he would not be entitled under the rule 
 stated infra, was set aside, but without costs, as the rule 
 was a severe one, and the client had acted inconsistently 
 {Gomley v. Wood, S J. Sf L. 678). Where a suit by- 
 third parties has been rendered necessary through a 
 solicitor's negligence in the conduct of his client's busi- 
 ness, he may be made to pay the costs of it ( Todd v. 
 Studholme, 3 K. Sf J. 341) ; and so at the suit of the 
 client himself ( Craz^ v. Watson, 8 Beav. 427). 
 
 A solicitor trustee is not allowed, as against his cestuis- Where a 
 que-trust, any costs other than those out of pocket in trustee 
 respect of any professional services rendered by him, acts for 
 
 . , . , -^ T . . . , , •' 1 himself, he 
 
 either in the admmistration oi the trust estate out oi is only- 
 court, or in conducting a suit by himself, or his own de- ''1'°^®'^ 
 ' _ _i= •' ' costs out 
 
 fence to a suit regarding the trust estate (^Moore v. Frowd, pocket, as 
 3 Mij. §• a 45 ? New v. Jones, 1 Mac. §• G. 668, n. ; ST"''' 
 Fraser v. Palmer, 4 F. §- C 515 ; Gomley v. Wood, 3 J. gun-trust. 
 ^ L. 678 ; In re Sherioood, 3 Beav. 338 ; Broughton v. 
 Broughton, 5 De G. M. Sf G. 160). ' The rule really is 
 that no one who has a duty to perform shall place himself 
 in a situation to have his interests conflicting with that 
 duty ; and a case for the application of the rule is that of 
 a trustee himself doing acts which he might employ others 
 to perform, and taking payment in some way for doing 
 them'* (per Lord Cranworth, C, 5 De G. M. §■ G. 
 164). The case of Carmicliael v. Wilson, 2 Mol. 537, 
 where the contrary is reported to have been held on Lord 
 Eldon's authority, cannot be relied on (per Lord Cotten- 
 ham, 1 Mac. §• G. 678; and Lord Langdale, 8 Beav. 
 594). The rule applies as well to a constructive as an 
 express trustee. Therefore, where a solicitor executor 
 filed a bill to recover part of the assets and made a judg- 
 ment creditor a party, the assets being insufficient for 
 payment of the debt, the executor was allowed only costs 
 
 * The rule also applies to other professional men placed in a fiduciary 
 position : see post, pp. 294, 295. Qu. whether the rule applies where a 
 solicitor executor renounces. 
 
280 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 Eule out of pocket {Pollard v. Doyle, 1 Dr. §• S. 319). The 
 
 w^erT I'ule also applies where the trustee is a member of a firm 
 
 solicitor is by -^v^hom the business is done ( Collins v. Carey, 2 Beav. 
 
 of a firm; 128; and see Matthison y. Clarke, Z Drew. 3); though 
 
 it is done by one of the partners who is not a trustee, if 
 
 it is for the profit of all ( Christophers v. White, 10 Beav. 
 
 523 ; Lyon v. Baker, 5 De G. Sf S. 622, where the Court 
 
 refused an enquiry whether the employment of the 
 
 but he may trustee's partner was for the benefit of all parties); but 
 
 p^ta°er ^ ^ trustee solicitor may employ his partner, who will be 
 
 entitled to full costs, provided that the trustee does not 
 
 participate in the profits ( Clack v. Carlon, 7 Jur. n. s. 
 
 441, 9 W. R. 568); and semble, two firms may come to 
 
 an arrangement between them for conducting each other's 
 
 trust business (ibid.). After a dissolution on which the 
 
 trustee partner retires, a fresh retainer to the continuing 
 
 members of the firm is necessary ; and if they continue 
 
 to act as solicitors to the trust without such retainer, they 
 
 will not be entitled to costs, unless upon the principle of 
 
 salvage, stated post, p. 283 (Burge v. Brutton, 2 Ha. 373). 
 
 Expenses The expenses of employing a town agent, if employed by 
 
 agen™ ^ Country solicitor trustee in the ordinary course of 
 
 allowed. business, will be allowed (ibid.'). 
 
 A solicitor In Cradock v. Piper, 1 Mac. §• G. 668, Lord Cottenham 
 appearing ^^^*^ *^^* ^ Solicitor trustee appearing for himself and his 
 for him- co-trustees in a suit was entitled to full costs as if he was 
 trustees. ^0^ a party, except so far as the costs were increased by 
 his being a party. The contrary, however, was expressly 
 held by Lord Langdale in the earlier case of Bainbrigge 
 V. Blair, 8 Beav. 588, where the solicitor acted for him- 
 self, his co-trustees, and cestuis-que-trust. In Lincoln v. 
 Windsor, 9 Ha. 158, V. C. Turner held that the rule in 
 Cradock v. Piper, applied only to costs in a suit, and not 
 to the costs of business done in the course of administra- 
 tion out of court, which he disallowed. This decision 
 was followed by Lord Cranworth, C, in Broughton v. 
 Broughton, 5 De G. M. §■ G. 164, who, however, con- 
 
COSTS OF AND RELATING TO SOLICITORS. 281 
 
 fessed Ms inability to see the distinction in principle 
 between costs in and ont of court, and threw doubts on 
 the soundness of Lord Cottenham's decision generally. 
 The rule in Cradock v. Piper was also questioned by the 
 same learned Lord in the House of Lords {Manson v. 
 Baillie, 2 3Iacq. 80, 82); and also by Lord Brougham 
 {ibid. p. 91). 
 
 A sole trustee acting as solicitor for the cestuis-que- Solicitor 
 trust, parties to a suit, will be allowed his visual costs, at appearing 
 least where they defend separately (Fraser v. Palmer, 4 ^°^ oestuis- 
 
 _^_. z^ ^ gue-trust. 
 
 y. §■ C. olo; Cradock v. Piper, loc. cit.); and according 
 
 to the latter case where the trustees and cestuis-que-trust 
 
 defend joiutly, so far as the costs are not increased thereby, 
 
 but see contra, Bainbrigge v. Blair, 8 Beav. 588 ; and 
 
 the observations supra. 
 
 Where a trustee solicitor becomes entitled to costs, the Special 
 
 Court will direct the taxation of his costs as between not made 
 
 solicitor and client in the usual manner, leaving it to the ^'^ decree 
 
 giving 
 Taxing [Master to take notice of the fact that he is a solicitor 
 
 soHcitor {York v. Broion, 1 Coll. 260; Cradock v. Piper, ^^^^^"^ 
 
 1 i¥ac. ^ G. 668). 
 
 But a solicitor becoming a trustee for his client may Solicitor 
 
 make a special contract vsath him for remuneration for his special 
 
 professional services, the costs of which will in that case ^o"t'''^ot 
 
 '■ for costs 
 
 be allowed {Moore v. Frowd, 3 My. Sf C. 45 ; In re on be- 
 Sherwood, 3 Beav. 338); though, semble, it would be t°^tef 
 difficult for a solicitor to maintain such special contract, 
 where the cHent had no independent advice {Moore v. 
 Froiod, loc. cit.^ ; or at least was not expressly informed 
 by the solicitor of the rule of law. In In re Sherwood, 
 loc. cit., the deed was settled by counsel on behalf of the 
 client and cestui-que-trust. In Gomley v. Wood, ^ J.^ L. 
 678, a deed executed by a client for securing a solicitor 
 trustee his costs, without independent legal advice or in- 
 formation of his rights, was set aside, although the client 
 had admitted his liability in correspondence, and had 
 petitioned for taxation. Where, in a general account and 
 
282 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 What 
 words 
 sufficient. 
 
 Meaning 
 of ' pro- 
 fessional ' 
 
 The Court 
 may give 
 solicitor 
 trustee 
 remunera- 
 tion in 
 special 
 cases. 
 
 The rule 
 
 applies 
 
 only 
 
 between 
 
 trustee 
 
 and 
 
 cestui-gue 
 
 trust. 
 
 Solicitor 
 mortgagee 
 acting for 
 himself. 
 
 release between a solicitor trustee and his cestui-que-trust, 
 the former took credit for bills of costs for professional 
 services, the release was upheld, the cestui-que-trust 
 having had independent advice (Stanes v. Parker, 9 Beav. 
 385) ; but secus where the cestui-que-trust had no in- 
 dependent advice ( Todd v. Wilson, ibid. 486 ; and see 
 In re Wyche, 11 Beav. 209). 
 
 The ordinary clause for trustees' indemnity and reim- 
 bursement, or a provision for retainer by trustees of costs 
 ' incurred, sustained, or borne ' by them, or which they 
 might ' sustain or be put to,' wiU not give a trustee 
 solicitor profit costs {Moore v. Frowd, 3 My. §• C. 45). 
 Where a solicitor executor is authorised to charge for 
 ' professional ' services, that means strictly professional, 
 and not such as might be performed by an executor in a 
 lay capacity, such as attendances at the Bank to receive 
 dividends, &c. {Harbin v. Darby, 28 Beav. 325). 
 
 Semble, the Court will, under special circumstances, 
 make an order allowing a solicitor trustee some remunera- 
 tion for his professional services; but the application 
 should be made before the costs are incurred {Bainbrigge 
 V. Blair, 8 Beav. 588) ; and professional charges would 
 not be given (ibid.) ; and see Marshall v. Holloway, 2 
 Swans. 453. 
 
 The rule depriving a trustee who acts as his own 
 solicitor of profit costs, however, applies only between the 
 trustee and his cestuis-que-trust ; and, therefore, as against 
 persons unsuccessfully impeaching the trust deed a 
 trustee in such a position will be entitled to full costs 
 {Pince V. Beattie, 2 N. R. 546, 11 W. R. 979). 
 
 It has been held also that a solicitor mortgagee defend- 
 ing his title to the mortgaged property will be entitled, as 
 against the mortgagor and subsequent incumbrancers, to 
 costs out of pocket only, if he acts for himself ( Sclater v. 
 Cottam, 3 Jur. n. s. 630, 5 W. R. 744). In Price v. 
 MBeth, 12 W. R. 818, V. C. Stuart held that objections 
 to allowing profit costs to a solicitor mortgagee should be 
 
COSTS OF AND RELATING TO SOLICITORS. 283 
 
 taken at the hearing, and that, in the absence of special 
 directions, the Taxing Master was bound to tax in the 
 usual way ; but see ante, p. 281. 
 
 The Court has power, under its general jurisdiction Where 
 over solicitors as officers of the Court, to make them pa^ys^^osS 
 personally answerable for the costs of proceedings taken personally, 
 
 •1 1- !• Tc 1-1 though not 
 
 Without authority, or lor malleasance or neglect in the a party to 
 
 conduct of their clients' business. the pro- 
 
 ceedings. 
 
 As to the practice, and the costs payable by the i- Where 
 solicitor, when the bill is filed by him without authority, mthout 
 or without proper authority, see ante, pp. 60, seq., where authority, 
 the cases are collected. As to what is sufficient retainer, 
 see a7ite, p. 62. Although a defendant, for whom a 
 solicitor has assumed to act without a retainer, takes no 
 step to have his name struck out, that is not equivalent 
 to a retainer {^Hall v. Laver, 1 Ha. 571); but a solicitor 
 under those circumstances may be entitled to his costs if 
 there are funds coming to the party, on the principle that 
 it is inequitable for him to take the benefit of the suit 
 without bearing the expenses of it {ibid. ; and see Burge 
 V. Brutton, 2 Ha. 373). The solicitor, however, in that 
 case will have no personal remedy, but merely a hen on 
 the funds {ibid.). The sohcitors of a company, if they act 
 in business relating to matters which are ultra vires as to 
 the company, are to that extent the solicitors of the 
 directors only {Re Phcenix Life Assurance Company, 
 ex parte Howard §• Dollman, 2 N. R. 548). Where a or the 
 solicitor made a motion in the name of a married woman P^eeed- 
 without a next friend, it was dismissed with costs, to be irregular. 
 paid by the solicitor {Pearse v. Cole, 16 Jur. 214). And 
 where a bill was filed by persons assuming, without title, 
 to sue in a corporate capacity, it was taken off the file 
 with costs, but against the town agent only, not the 
 country solicitor {Burgesses of Ruthin v. Adams, 7 Sim. 
 
 345). 
 
 In CocUe V. Whiting, \ R. ^ M. 43, it was said that ii. Where 
 if a bill, which is dismissed at the hearing with costs, be eeedinga 
 
284 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 are not SO vexatious and frivolous that it cannot have been in- 
 °" '■'' * ' stituted bond fide, and the plaintiff is out of the jurisdic- 
 tion, the Court would compel the plaintiff's solicitor to 
 pay the taxed costs. "Where a false plea was put in for 
 purpose of delay, it was ordered to be taken off the file 
 with costs against the solicitor who gave instructions for 
 it {^Aubrey v. Aspinall, Jac. 441). In an interpleader 
 suit, where the plaintiff was colluding with one of the 
 defendants, the other defendants' costs as between solicitor 
 and client were ordered to be paid by the plaintiff and his 
 or in case attorney {Dungey r.Angove, 2 Ves. Junr. 304, 313). A 
 feasance of bankruptcy petition, being vexatious and frivolous, and 
 attorney, though presented in another's napie, really for the attorney's 
 private advantage, was dismissed with costs against the at- 
 torney {In re Cuthbert, 1 Mad. 78). Where an illiterate 
 person, having become the purchaser of property under a 
 decree, retained the vendor's solicitor, by whom, though 
 the report was against the title, he was attached for 
 non-payment of the purchase monies, the contract was 
 cancelled on motion, and all the costs were ordered to 
 be paid by the solicitor {Bromage v. Davies, 4 Jur. n. s, 
 682). Again, where a solicitor having been discharged by 
 the infant plaintiff's mother, by whom he had been retained, 
 nevertheless appointed a new next friend in place of the 
 former one who was dead, and went on with the suit, 
 he was charged with the costs of a motion to change the 
 next friend, and of the appointment of a new one (^Landers 
 V. Ingersoll, 4 Ha. 596). A solicitor who, knowing that 
 money in court belongs to one person gets it out for 
 another, will be personally liable (^Ezart v. Lister, 5 Beav. 
 585) ; and it is enough, if he knows of circumstances 
 which duly considered would lead him to the knowledge 
 (ibid. ; and see Todd v. Studholme, 3 K. Sf J. 341). 
 ™- I" „ So also in cases of scandal the Court has ordered the 
 
 C^S6S of 
 
 scandal. solicitor to pay costs ; see the cases cited ante, p. 28. 
 
 iv. In The Court may also direct the solicitor of one of the 
 
 negUgence Parties to pay to another party the costs occasioned by his 
 
COSTS or AND RELATING TO SOLICITORS. 285 
 
 negligence in the conduct of his client's business. See between 
 Faickes v. Pratt, 1 P. W. 592, ivhere the bill omitted to pray [fel'tnT' 
 process against some of the defendants, and a demurrer solicitor: 
 having been consequently allowed for want of parties, the 
 costs were ordered to be paid by the solicitor personally, the 
 plaintiff being a poor man ; Courtney v. Stock, 2 Dr. 8f W. 
 251, where a solicitor was ordered to pay the costs of the 
 day, in consequence of his non-attendance in court when 
 the cause was called on ; Ross v. Wood, 2 Dr. §• Wal. 490, 
 where the solicitor vexatiously refused to accept service 
 for his client; White v. Hillacre, 3 F. §• C. 278, in the 
 Exchequer, where a solicitor was charged with the costs 
 of an application rendered necessary by his own delay and 
 mistake; and Re Hogan 3 Atk. 812, where a petition on 
 which affidavits had been sworn before the solicitor himself 
 was dismissed with costs to be paid by the solicitor. 
 
 As between the solicitor and his client, however, it has as between 
 been expressly held, that the Court has no power under ^^^ ^i^^ 
 its general iurisdiction to make the solicitor responsible to °^^ client, 
 
 . , as to costs 
 
 the client for costs already occasioned to the latter by the already 
 solicitor's negligence in the conduct of a suit {FranUand v. i°<=urred. 
 Lucas, 4 Sim. 586). On the other hand L. J. Turner ex- 
 pressed a decided opinion in favour of such jurisdiction in 
 Nixon V. Wilkinson, 4: De G. Sf J. 508 ; and in Wood v. 
 Wood, 4 Russ. 558, where the plaintiff's solicitor had un- 
 necessarily dismissed one bill with costs, and filed a second 
 one, Lord Eldon said that, as between solicitor and client, 
 the Court would take care that the client did not suffer by 
 unnecessary proceedings taken by the solicitor ; and see 
 — V. Jolland, 8 Ves. 72. In Floyd v. Nangle, 3 Atk. 568, 
 Lord Hardwicke held that where a solicitor had been ne- 
 gligent in the conduct of his client's business, the Court 
 would grant an attachment against him, but doubted as to 
 the quantum of damages. Lastly in Ridley v. Tiplady, 
 20 Beav. 44, the Court seems to have proceeded under 
 the general jurisdiction only * in ordering on the plaintiff's 
 
 ♦ The order is said to have been made under Stat. 15 and 16 Vict. c. 80, 
 K. 9 (see post, p. 287), sed qii. 
 
286 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 Solicitor 
 may be 
 made an- 
 swerable 
 in costs 
 for negU- 
 genee on 
 bill filed. 
 
 Where the 
 solicitor 
 has given 
 a personal 
 undertak- 
 ing; 
 
 application his former solicitor, who had neglected to pro- 
 secute the decree in the Master's office, to pay the costs 
 of the report and of the application, and the order to be 
 made thereon. But the jurisdiction, if it exists, is discre- 
 tionary with the Court, and should be exercised with 
 great care {per L. J. Knight Bruce, Nixon v. Wilkinson, 
 loc. cit.). It may be here observed, that the Court has no 
 power, under its general jurisdiction, to order the solicitor 
 to pay over monies received by him not in that character 
 {Re Harvey, 17 Beav. 330) ; or as the solicitor of some 
 person other than the applicant {Nixon v. Wilkinson, loc. 
 cit. ; Tylee v. Webb, 14 Beav. 14). And where there was 
 a question of liability, as between partners, the Court 
 refused to make any order under the general jurisdiction 
 over solicitors {Chater v. Maclean, 1 Jur. n. s. 175). 
 
 A solicitor may also be made answerable for negligence 
 on bill filed. "Where a fund in an administration suit had, 
 through the negligence of the plaintifF's solicitor, been 
 distributed amongst the creditors without regard to the 
 rights of a mortgagee, the Court, in a suit instituted for 
 the purpose, directed the creditors to refund pro rata, and 
 the solicitor to make good the deficiency, if any, and pay 
 the costs of the suit ( Todd v. Studholme, 3 K. Sf J. 341) ; 
 and the solicitor had to pay the costs of a suit occasioned 
 by his negligence or misconduct, in taking an insufficient 
 security for his client ( Craiy v. Watson, 8 Beav. 427). 
 Negligence will also be a good answer to the claim of a 
 solicitor against his client's estate in an administration suit 
 for the costs of a suit which failed through his default 
 {Stokes V. Trumper, 2 K. Sf J. 232; but the case was 
 compromised on appeal). 
 
 Lastly, a solicitor may become liable in costs, on the 
 grounds of a personal undertaking by him. See Cook v. 
 Bromhead, 16 Ves. 133, where a solicitor, having under- 
 taken to appear for a defendant at the hearing and not 
 having done so, was ordered on motion to pay the plaintiffs 
 the costs occasioned by the defendant not appearing, and 
 the costs of the application. ' The difference is where the 
 
COSTS OF AND RELATING TO SOLICITORS. 287 
 
 party thus undertaking for and on behalf of his client has 
 an authority so to do, and where he has not. If such 
 undertaker has no authority, then it is a fraud, and the 
 undertaker ought himself to be liable. But where there 
 is such an authority (as here there was) to the attorney, 
 this is only acting for another, like the case of a factor or 
 broker acting for principals, who were never held to be 
 Hable in their own capacities " {per L. C. Talbot, Johnson 
 T. Ogilby, 3 P. TV. 278 ; and see In re Williams, 12 Beav. 
 510). A personal undertaking by a solicitor to pay costs 
 may be enforced by the summary jurisdiction of the 
 Court {Gilbert v. Cooper, 15 Sim. 343); but not if the 
 payment of the costs is only one of the terms of a com- 
 promise {s.c. on appeal, 17 X. J. ch. 265). 
 
 In Cockle V. IJliiting, I R. 8f M. 43, it was said that if or guaran- 
 a solicitor guarantee his client against costs, and, on dis- (.^gnt, 
 missal of the bill with costs, the plaintiff is not within the against 
 jurisdiction, the Court would compel the sohcitor to pay 
 the taxed costs. "Where the solicitor gave the relator in 
 a charity information an indemnity against costs, the in- 
 formation was ordered to be taken off the file, with costs 
 against the relator and the solicitor {Att. Gen. v. Skinners^ 
 Company, C. P. C. 7). 
 
 Reference may here be conveniently made to the 9th Where 
 section of the "^Masters in Chancery AboUtion Act' (15 and their 
 &• 16 Vic. c. 80), which is as follows : — ' In the event of the solicitors 
 parties in any cause, matter, or thing, or their solicitors, fault in 
 refusing or neglecting within a time to be fixed by the P™ceed- 
 Master to bring the Master's report or certificate before business 
 the Court, the same may, by direction of the Master, be M^^gtgr'g 
 brought before the Court by the solicitor for the time Offices. 
 being to the suitors' fund, and the Court is hereby em- 
 powered to order payment of the costs and expenses of the 
 solicitor to the suitors' fund out of such of the funds in the 
 cause, matter, or thing, or by such parties, as to the Court 
 shall seem just ; and in case payment thereof cannot be ob- 
 tained by any of the means aforesaid, the same by the di- 
 rection of the Court may be paid out of the suitors' fund.' 
 
288 COSTS AFFECTING PAETICULAK PEKSONS. 
 
 Section XIII. — Costs of Trustees, Executors, and 
 Administrators. 
 
 i. Costs of 
 
 trustees 
 
 &c. in suits 
 
 between 
 
 themselTCS 
 
 and 
 
 strangers. 
 
 "Where 
 
 trustees 
 
 are 
 
 plaintiffs. 
 
 Where 
 trustees 
 are de- 
 fendants. 
 
 Costs of 
 
 In suits between themselves and persons, strangers to the 
 trust, executors, administrators, and trustees, suing in 
 that character, are in no better position as to costs than 
 parties suing in their own right ( Westley v. Williamson, 
 2 Mol. 458 ; Hill v. Magan, ibid. 460 ; Elsey v. Lutyens, 
 8 Ha. 165; and see per Lord Northington, Burgess v. 
 Wheate, 1 Ed. 251). Therefore a vendor's bill for spe- 
 cific performance was dismissed with costs, although the 
 plaintiffs were only trustees for sale (^Edwards v. Harvey, 
 Coop. 39). Where a bill had been dismissed with costs, 
 and, the plaintiff having died before taxation, his executor 
 revived the suit, with the intention of appealing, which 
 he did not do, he was ordered to pay the costs personally 
 {Horloch V. Priestley, 8 Sim. 621). If trustees become 
 entitled to costs against strangers, they will of course be 
 taxed as between party and party only ; * and residuary 
 legatees in trust were not allowed costs as between so- 
 licitor and client as against the executrix, who was sued 
 in that character, though she was also tenant for life of 
 the residue {Hearn v. Wells, 1 Coll. 323). 
 
 But where trustees are brought into court in a suit to 
 determine the rights in a fund, they will be allowed costs 
 out of it, although they make a claim, if it is merely by 
 way of submission to the Court {Rashleigh v. Master, 
 1 Ves. Jun. 201, 205). In Elsey v. Cox, 26 Beav. 95, the 
 
 * Costs as between party and party only are given when taxation is 
 ordered without special directions {ante, p, 1). Therefore, although the 
 'Patent Law Amendment Act,' 1852 (15 and 16 Vict. c. 83, s. 43), enacts 
 that a patentee shall be entitled to his costs as between solicitor and client 
 of a suit to restrain the infringement of his patent, unless the Coiu-t other- 
 wise directs, yet a special direction for such taxation must be inserted in 
 the decree {Lister t. Leather, i K. ^ J. 425). And see a similar provision 
 in the 'Merchandise Marks Act, 1862' (25 and 26 Vict. u. 88, s. 23). 
 
COSTS OF TKUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ETC. 289 
 
 Court, on setting aside a voluntary settlement, as void trustees 
 against creditors, held that the utmost it could do was to void deed. 
 make the decree against the trustees without costs ; and see 
 Townsend v. IVestacott, 4 Beav. 58 ; Elsey v. Lutyens, 
 8 Ha. 159, 164. But in Goldsmith v. Russell, 5 De G, 
 M. &c G. 556, the costs of all parties, except the settlor, 
 were allowed out of the funds. In Turquand v. Knight, 
 14 Sim. 643, the trustee had made himself a party to the 
 fraud by signing a false receipt on the deed, and was 
 allowed no costs but did not pay any ; and see Prideaux 
 V. Lonsdale, 1 De G. J. §• S. 433, 439, overruling on this 
 point s. c. 4 Giff^. 159. Where the trustee had also a 
 beneficial interest, and insisted on the vahdity of the deed, 
 he had to pay costs {Irwin v. Rogers, 12 Ir. Eq. R. 159). 
 ^Vhere the trustee, under a fraudulent assignment of an 
 annuity, was also trustee under the instrument creating 
 it, and a necessary party in that character, he was allowed 
 his costs, and directed to retain them, in default of pay- 
 ment by the insolvent, out of the annuity {Norcutt v. 
 Dodd, Cr. Sf Eh. 100). And where a conveyance by the 
 trustee was asked for, he, being treated as a trustee to 
 that extent, was allowed his costs ( Snow v. Hole, cited in 
 Lewin on Trusts, &c., 4th ed. p. 665). In a suit by a 
 purchaser to have a voluntary settlement delivered up to 
 be cancelled, no costs were given to the cestuis-que-trust, 
 but the trustees had theirs from the plaintiff, who had 
 them over from the settlor {DaMns v. Whymper, 26 Beav. 
 569). In Colman v. Sarel, 1 Ves. Jun. 50, the deed was 
 supported, but, the transaction not being meritorious, 
 the trustee was not allowed any costs. 
 
 As between themselves and creditors, however, ex- Aabe- 
 ecutors and administrators are entitled to their full costs, executors 
 charges, and expenses out of the estate in priority to the and 
 payment of debts, though the estate is insolvent (see the ' 
 cases cited ante, p. 135). But if they improperly deny 
 assets, they may be postponed to the creditors' debts and 
 costs (Lodge v. Pritchard, 4 Giff. 294). 
 
 u 
 
290 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 ii. As 
 
 between 
 trustees 
 &e. and 
 their 
 
 gue-trust 
 
 Trustees 
 have a 
 lien on 
 the trust 
 estate for 
 their costs, 
 charges, 
 and ex- 
 penses. 
 
 As between trustees and cestuis-que-trust, the former are 
 ordinarily allowed their costs of suit as between solicitor 
 and client,* and in addition thereto any other costs, 
 charges, and expenses properly incurred by them in the 
 execution of their trust, or the administration of their 
 estate, upon the suggestion of counsel that any such have 
 been incurred (1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 1074; and Bradshaw v. 
 Bradshaw, cor. V. C. Kindersley, there referred to in 
 note 4). And for the form of the order, see Seton, 767, 
 where the form of an enquiry whether any extra charges 
 and expenses have been incurred is also given. The 
 trustee will be allowed his usual costs, although he is a 
 bankrupt {Turner v. Molineux, 9 W. R. 252, 3 L. T. 
 w. s. 687). A bankrupt executor's costs up to the time 
 of his bankruptcy wiU be set off against a sum due from 
 him to the estate, but not his subsequent costs (see ante, 
 p. 128, and the cases there cited). 
 
 Trustees, &c. have a lien on the trust funds or estate 
 for their proper costs, charges, and expenses {Attorney 
 General v. Mayor of Norwich, 2 My. §• C. 406, 424 ; 
 Parsons v. Spooner, 5 Ha. 1 02, 1 10 ; and see Statute 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 35, s. 31). And where a married 
 woman's suit against her trustees was dismissed with costs 
 so far as related to an alleged breach of trust, the next 
 friend proving insolvent, the trustees were allowed to re- 
 tain their costs of suit out of the income under the 
 powers of reimbursement in the settlement (Z)' Oechsner 
 V. Scott, 24 Beav. 239). So, where the estate was being 
 administered by the Court, consignees and receivers 
 appointed by it were allowed advances made by them in 
 excess of the income, out of the corpus of the property 
 {Morison v. Morison, 7 De G. M. ^ G. 214). 'These 
 payments must be looked on as payments made in the 
 
 » But a trustee under a void instrument which passes no trust-fund 
 cannot have costs as between solicitor and client {Mohun v. Mohun, 1 Swans. 
 201, where the bill was filed to establish a will of personalty, which the 
 Court held to be void ; and see Dakins v. Whymper, 26 Beav. 569). 
 
COSTS OF TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ETC. 291 
 
 proper administration of the trust for the protection and 
 preservation of that, which was to be protected and pre- 
 serYed, until it should be converted into money. They 
 must be treated as having been made in execution of a 
 m.oney trust, and it is impossible to permit the trust pro- 
 perty to be enjoyed by any persons beneficially under the 
 trust without making good the expenditure and advances 
 bond fide made in execution of the trust under the 
 authority of the Court, whose duty it was to direct how 
 the trusts were to be executed' (ibid. p. 224, 226). But 
 where an estate was vested in a legal tenant for life, with 
 remainder to trustees, in trust to sell, it was held that the 
 trustees had no lien on the estate for the expenses of an 
 abortive sale, attempted with the approbation of the 
 cestuis-que-trust, some of whom were under disability 
 {Leedham v. Chawner, 4: K. 8f J. 458). A trustee acting Where 
 bond fide in concurrence with the heir at law under a ^^ funds 
 will as to real estate, which was supposed to be valid, but 
 proved to be invalid, was held to be entitled to be in- 
 demnified out of the personal estate (^Edgecumbe v. Car- 
 penter, 1 Beav. 171). But charity trustees, having several 
 properties vested in them, cannot indemnify themselves 
 out of one for expenses incurred with respect to others 
 {Attorney General v. Grainger, 7 W. R. 684). And 
 where, on an ex officio information by the Attorney 
 General, a charity estate was held to be lost through 
 breach of condition, the trustees could get no costs either 
 from the Attorney General or out of the estate (ibid.). 
 In Attorney General v. Cumming, 2 Y. S^ C. C. C. 155, where 
 the subject of the trust was an advowson and there were 
 no funds, trustees (defendants) were allowed costs from 
 their cestuis-que-trust (plaintiffs) personally; and see 
 Edenborough v. Archbishop of Canterbury, 2 Russ. 112. 
 An 'administrator ad litem is entitled to his costs out of Costs of 
 the fund, if there is one, or, in default, from the plaintiff ^^strat^r' 
 personally {Nash v. Dillon, 1 Mol. 236 ; Nicholson v. a<^ li*'^''^- 
 Falkiner, ibid. 555). 
 
 u 2 
 
292 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 How the 
 Hen maybe 
 enforced. 
 
 Disclaim- 
 ing trustee 
 entitled to 
 costs as 
 between 
 party and 
 party only. 
 
 Costs 
 of dis- 
 claiming 
 trustees 
 generally. 
 
 Where a 
 bill is 
 
 Where a widow on the death of her husband abandoned 
 a suit by her husband and herself, the executors were 
 allowed to enforce their lien for their costs by a supple- 
 mental bill {Jackson v. Woolley 12 Sim. 12). But where 
 a trustee, defending separately, died before the hearing 
 on further directions, a petition by his personal represen- 
 tative for payment of his costs out of the funds was 
 refused {Malins v. Greenway, 1 Ha. 391). In that case, 
 however, the costs were partly incurred in rebutting 
 charges against him otherwise than in his fiduciary cha- 
 racter. 
 
 A person who disclaims the trust is in the situation of 
 any other defendant, and can have costs only as between 
 party and party {Norway v. Norway, 2 My. §■ K. 278 ; 
 Heap V. Jones, 5 W. R. 106 ; Bulkeley v. Earl of Eglin- 
 ton, 1 Jur. n. s. 994; Bray v. West, 9 Sim. 429, notwith- 
 standing Sherratt v. Bentley, 1 R. ^ M. 655, which is 
 overruled). Where the executrix of a deceased and sole 
 trustee declined to receive or pay any dividends on the 
 trust stock, she was allowed out of the fund the costs of 
 a suit for the appointment of new trustees and a transfer 
 of the fund {Legg v. Mackrell, 2 De G. F. §• J. 551, 
 overruling s. c. 1 Giff. 165, where V. C. Stuart said he 
 would have made her pay costs, but that the bill prayed 
 costs against her). But a trustee disclaiming should not 
 put in a full answer, and if he does so, he will not be 
 allowed the costs of it {Martin v. Persse, 1 Mol. 146 ; 
 Murphy \. O' Shea, 2 J. Sj- L. 431); but in Benboiu y. 
 Davies, 11 Beav. 369, where the disclaiming trustee set 
 out a long correspondence to show that he had never 
 acted, he was allowed the costs of it under the circum- 
 stances. A person, who had been named as trustee of a 
 term without his authority, being called on to disclaim was 
 held entitled to receive out of the trust funds the expenses 
 of taking the opinion of counsel as to his obligation to 
 execute a deed of disclaimer {Re Tryon, 7 Beav. 496). 
 
 Where a bill is dismissed with costs as against trustees. 
 
COSTS OF TRUSTEES, EXECUTOKS, ETC. 293 
 
 and the Court has no estate under its control, the costs dismissed 
 will in general be taxed as between party and party only against 
 (Saunders v. Saunders, 5 W. B. 479; 3 Jur. n. s. 727); t^stees, it 
 but costs as between solicitor and client may be allowed raUy, -with 
 under special circumstances {Edenborough v. Archbishop "^^^ ^"^'^^ 
 of Canterbury, 2 Muss. 112). only. 
 
 Trustees severing in their defence will not be allowed Trustees 
 separate sets of costs, except under special circumstances severing, 
 (seeawfe, pp. 88, 89). In addition to the cases there cited, entitled to 
 see Mortimer v. Picton, 12 W. R. 292, as to the costs of ^ep^i^f^ 
 
 ^ . ^ , sets of 
 
 trustees severing where one imputes misconduct to the costs. 
 other ; Birks v. Micklethwayt, \2 W. R. 505, where an 
 order to the same effect as that in Prince v. Hine (2), 27 
 Beav. S-IS (see ante, p. 88), was made prospectively ; and 
 Cummins v. Bromfield, 3 Jur. n. s. 657, where, in a hostile 
 legatee's suit, two trustees severing from a third, who was 
 the sole acting trustee and lived in distant part of the 
 country, were allowed separate costs. A trustee who 
 refuses to join his co-trustee as co-plaintiff in a suit pro- 
 perly instituted is not entitled to costs as defendant 
 {Hughes v. Key, 20 Beav. 397 ; Collier v. Dudley, 2 L. 
 J. ch. 15) ; although the suit is to set right a breach of 
 trust, as to which the defendant trustee is innocent {Hughes 
 V. Key, loc. cit.^ ; but see contra, Blount v. Barrow, 3 Bro. 
 C. C. 90. As to the costs of a trustee not joining Costs of 
 his cestui-que-trust as co-plaintiff, and therefore made joining his 
 defendant, see the rule stated ante, p. 89. Where oestui-que- 
 
 tVUiSt lis CO" 
 
 an equitable lessee of tithes with a right to call for piaintiflf. 
 the legal estate filed his bill, and made the rector a 
 defendant, the latter was held entitled to his costs from 
 the plaintiff, as there was no express or implied agreement 
 that the lessee should use the rector's name; but the 
 plaintiff could not recover the rector's costs with his own, 
 -as he might have called for the legal estate before in- 
 stituting the suit {White v. Gardner, 1 F. §• C 385). 
 However, in suits between mortgagor and mortgagees, it 
 would seem that the ordinary rules do not apply to co- 
 
294 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 ' Costs, 
 
 and ex- 
 penses,' 
 ■what are 
 
 Costs 
 of pro- 
 fessional 
 trustees. 
 
 mortgagees, or a mortgagee and his trustees severing in 
 their defence or not suing jointly (see ante, p. 166, and 
 the cases there cited). 
 
 In Collis V. Rohins, 1 De G. §■ S. 131, 135, it was con- 
 ceded that funeral expenses and costs of probate were not 
 included in ' costs, charges, and expenses ; ' nor are costs 
 incurred in defending other suits relating to the estate 
 instituted against the executor, in that character, included 
 (Payne v. Little, 27 Beav. 83) ; and the costs of rehear- 
 ings before the Lord Chancellor are not included in 
 costs of the suit as between solicitor and client ' (Agaleg 
 V. Hartwell, 5 Beav. 271). Where a trustee was about 
 to be discharged, and instructed his solicitor to prepare 
 the proper deeds of release, but on discovering that a 
 breach of trust had been committed, filed a biU instead, he 
 was allowed the costs of preparing the deeds of release 
 which became useless in consequence of the suit (^Stephens 
 V. Lord Newlorough, 11 Beav. 403); and the trustee was 
 also allowed the expenses of a conference with counsel to 
 advise on a proposed settlement of the suit (ibid.) ; and 
 see Re Tryon, 7 Beav. 496. Executors wiU not be 
 allowed the costs of transferring funds from the testator's 
 name to their own names {HopMnson v. Roe, 1 Beav. 183). 
 ' It is not the practice in taking the account in Chambers 
 [under the decree] to allow expenses incurred since the 
 suit, but they are provided for on further consideration ' 
 (Set. 768). A trustee who is respondent to an appeal to 
 the House of Lords, on a question affecting the rights of 
 the cestuis-que-trust inter se, will not be allowed the costs of 
 printing a case or appendix {Prendergast v. Prendergast, 
 3 Ho. Lds. Ca. 195, 225). As to the costs which will be 
 allowed to a solicitor trustee acting for himself, see ante, 
 p. 279 seq. The same principle applies to other profes- 
 sional men, made trustees. Thus an executor trustee, who 
 acts as auctioneer on the sale of trust property, will not 
 be allowed commission {Kirkmany. Booth, 11 Beav. 273); 
 though he is only a member of a firm who conduct the 
 
COSTS OF TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ETC, 295 
 
 sale {Matthison v. Clarke, 3 Drew. 3); but secus where 
 lie is authorised by the trust deed to charge commission, 
 though not described in it as an auctioneer {^Douglas v. 
 Archbutt, 2 De G. ^ J. 148). So a land surveyor trustee 
 who superintended the management and sale of the 
 estates was held, under the powers of the instrument 
 creating the trust, to be entitled to compensation for loss 
 of time (^Willis v. Kibble, 1 Beav. 559). Executors, who 
 are also agents, are not allowed commission on remittances 
 from India {Hovey v. Blakeman, 4 Ves. 596); and trustees 
 bankers are not allowed compound interest on advances 
 {Crosskill r. Bower, 32 Beav. 86). 
 
 Where the sole object of a suit is to make the trustees Costs of 
 answerable for a breach of trust, and a decree is made j^, g^j^g 
 against them, it will be almost invariably with costs (Earl respecting 
 
 7-7-7 -1 T7- 7- nn., Twrr ■ 7 HT bpcaches 
 
 T^owlet \. Herbert, 1 Ves. J un. 297 ; ('Vhistlery. JSIewman, of trust. 
 4 Ves. 129 ; Piety v. Stace, ibid. 620 ; Tebbs v. Carpenter, 
 1 Mad. 290); although the cestui-que-trust had, but in 
 ignorance, dealt with the person in whose hands the money 
 had been suffered to remain, as the person liable (Adams 
 V. Clifton, 1 Buss. 297) ; and though the trustees had no 
 corrupt motive ( Cajfrey v. Darby, 6 Ves. 488 ; East v. 
 By all, 2 P. W. 284 ; O'Callaghan v. Cooper, 5 Ves. 129). 
 ' I do not know of any instance where trustees are made 
 to repair a breach of trust, in which they have not been 
 charged with the costs of the suit. It is almost always a 
 necessary consequence, for they ought not to add to the 
 loss of their cestuis-que-trust the costs of the suit ren- 
 dered necessary for the purpose of obtaining redress ' (per 
 Lord Langdale, M.R., Byrne v. Norcott, 13 Beav. 336, 
 346). But if other parties have had the benefit of the 
 breach of trust, they will be primarily liable ; see Eaves 
 V. Hickson, 30 Beav. 136, where the costs were ordered to 
 be paid (1) by the parties who had the benefit of the 
 breach of trust, (2) by the party who caused it by forging 
 a certificate, and (3) by the trustees ; and see as to the 
 
296 COSTS AFFECTING PAKTICTJLAK PERSONS. 
 
 Where a 
 corpora- 
 tion have 
 committed 
 a breach 
 of trust 
 respecting 
 charity 
 property. 
 
 ultimate liability of the trustees, Webster v. Le Hunt* 
 8 W. R. 534. Where two trustees are implicated in a 
 breach of trust, the Court will direct the defendants' costs 
 to be paid by both, without distinguishing between their 
 relative degrees of culpability (^Lawrence v. Bowie, 2 Ph. 
 140) ; and see Littlehales v. Gascoyne, 3 Bro. C. C. 73, 
 where both executors were held liable to costs, though 
 one only was charged with interest ; but in that case the 
 defaulting executor was insolvent. Although, however, 
 both trustees are liable to the plaintiff in the first instance, 
 yet, as between themselves, an innocent one is entitled to 
 be indemnified against the consequences of the breach and 
 costs by his co-trustee, and if the former is obliged to 
 pay, he will be in the position of a surety paying his 
 principal's debt {Lockhart v. Reilly, 1 De G. ^ J. 464) ; 
 independently, however, of the ' Mercantile Law Amend- 
 ment Act ' (19 and 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 5), he will be only a 
 simple contract creditor, but as to payments made subse- 
 quently to the passing of that Act, though the trust was 
 created before it, he may be a specialty creditor (ibid.). 
 "Where in a suit by residuary legatees, the defendants 
 admitted that a settlement come to twenty years before 
 had proceeded on an erroneous footing as to the rights of 
 parties, the bill was dismissed on the ground of lapse of 
 time, but without costs (Portloch v. Gardner, 1 Ha. 594). 
 If the defaulting trustee be dead, the cestuis-que-trust are 
 only creditors against his estate, and his executor, fairly 
 accounting, will be entitled to his costs, though the estate 
 is insolvent (Haldenby v. Spqfforth, 9 Beav. 195). 
 
 Where a corporation, trustees for a charity, have, 
 without wilful default, commenced an erroneous mode of 
 dealing with the charity property, which they take the 
 first opportunity to correct, the Court will not charge 
 them with the costs of the suit {Att. Gen. v. Drapers' Com- 
 pany, 4 Beav. 67) ; but secus where they set up a right 
 
 * This case was reversed on appeal, on a matter of evidence (9 W. B. 
 918), but the principle of law was left untouched. 
 
COSTS OF TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ETC. 297 
 
 in themselves adversely to the charity {ibid. ; Att. Gen. v. 
 Christ's Hospital, 4 Beav. 73), notwithstanding the long 
 usage of their predecessors (ibid.) And see further, as to 
 the cases vrhere a corporation, as trustees, will be charged 
 with costs, ante, pp. 143, 144, and the cases there cited. 
 
 In a suit to set aside a purchase by a trustee of trust Costs of 
 property, the trustee does not necessarily, in the absence get aside 
 of fraud, pay costs {Baker v. Carter, 1 Y. 8f C. 250, where purehases 
 the decree was made without costs) ; but see Wliichcote tees of 
 \. Lawrence, Z Ves. 740: Sanderson y. Walker, 13 Ves. *™^' , 
 
 . . property. 
 
 601, where costs were given against the trustee. 
 
 If, however, subsequent proceedings are necessary for Trustees 
 clearing and distributing the fund, and the trustees by the repairing a 
 
 decree declared liable for a breach of trust, and ordered breach of 
 
 1 11- 1-1 t™^' ®^'^' 
 
 to pay the costs up to the hearing, promptly comply with tied to 
 
 the decree, they may be allowed the costs of such subse- subsequent 
 ' _.' •' costs. 
 
 quent proceedings {Hewett v. Foster, 7 Beav. 348 ; Knott 
 V. Cottee, 16 Beav. 11). 
 
 Where the suit would have been proper, and the executor Where the 
 or trustee a necessary party, independently of the breach of q^ trustee 
 trust, or it comprises other objects besides the remedying of would have 
 the breach, the defaulting trustee or executor may be al- necessary 
 lowed his costs of the suit generally, as between solicitor and ^^^ *° 
 client, though he may have to pay, but as between party indepen- 
 and party only, the costs occasioned by the breach {Pride th^^Jeach 
 V. Fooks, 2 Beav. 430; and see Pocock v. Redington, 5 of trust. 
 Ves. 800 ; Sanderson v. Walker, 13 Ves. 601 ; Hall v. 
 Hallet, 1 Cox, 134, 141 ; and the observations of Sir T. 
 Plumer in Tehbs v. Carpenter, 1 Mad. 290, cited ante, p. 
 120). In Bate v. Hooper, 5 De G. M. 8f G. 338, the 
 trustees, not having derived any benefit to themselves, 
 were relieved from payment of, but were not allowed, the 
 costs occasioned by the breach. And if the breach of 
 trust is of small importance, and the money is brought 
 into court, and there is no loss, the trustees may be 
 allowed the full costs of the whole suit {Royds v. Royds, 
 14 Beav. 54 ; Fitzgerald v. Pringle, 2 Mol. 534). 
 
298 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 Mere neg- 
 ligence 
 will not 
 deprive 
 trustees 
 of their 
 costs. 
 
 Costs of 
 trustees, 
 &c. retain- 
 ing balan- 
 ces, and 
 charged 
 with 
 interest : 
 
 or dis- 
 allowed 
 credits. 
 
 Wtere 
 trustees' 
 conduct 
 has been 
 vexatious 
 they pay- 
 costs. 
 
 Trustees 
 appointing 
 
 It has been already stated that any mere negligence 
 on the part of executors (and the same is true of trustees 
 generally) is not sufficient ground for visiting them with 
 costs, or even depriving them of costs {ante, pp. \20, seq.), 
 but in England v. Downs, 6 Beav. 279, where the trus- 
 tees' negligence occasioned the suit, their costs were dis- 
 allowed. 
 
 As to the costs of executors and trustees retaining 
 balances in their hands, and charged with interest thereon, 
 see the cases cited ante, pp. 120, seq., and in addition, 
 Sammes v. Hickman, 2 Ves. Jun. 36 ; Fozier v. Andrews, 
 2 J. Sf L. 199, where the costs were allowed to the trus- 
 tees. In Mousley v. Carr, 4 Beav. 49, the trustee, who 
 was also tenant for life, was charged with interest on 
 monies appropriated to her own use, and got no costs, 
 but it was said that if she had been merely trustee she 
 might have had costs. In Att. Gen. v. Brewers' Company, 
 1 P. W. 376, charity trustees who claimed as due to them 
 a much larger sum than was found due, were disallowed 
 costs; but see Bennet v. Going, 1 Mol. 529, as to the 
 disallowance of credits in executors' and trustees' accounts. 
 
 Where the trustee's conduct has been vexatious he will 
 be charged with costs ; see Marshall v. Sladden, 4 De G. 
 §■ S. 468, where trustees vexatiously refused to accept, 
 as transferee of a mortgage, an unobjectionable person 
 proposed by the tenant for life; Toner v. Thompson, 7 
 Sim. 245, where the evasive and fraudulent conduct of the 
 administratrix, in the course of taking the accounts, having 
 necessitated the employment of an accountant, she had to 
 pay the costs of it ; Att. Gen. v. Murdoch, 2 K. SfJ.57l, 
 where trustees of a meeting-house having become dis- 
 qualified by change of religion, and refusing to retire, were 
 ordered to pay the costs of the appointment of new trus- 
 tees ; Palairet v. Carew, 32 Beav. 564, where a trustee 
 for sale, refusing to concur in a sale or retire, had to 
 pay the costs of the suit. 
 Where, pending an information for the purpose of appoint- 
 
COSTS OF TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ETC. 299 
 
 ing new trustees of a charity, the continuing trustees took °®^ 
 
 trustfips 
 
 upon themselves to make an appointment, it was set aside, pendente 
 the propriety of it not being clear, and the trustees had to '*'" ' 
 pay the costs occasioned by their act {Att Gen. v. Clack, 
 1 Beav. 467). In Peatfield v. Bean, 2 W. R. 68, 23 L. 
 J. ch. 497, a trustee appointed by a surviving trustee, 
 pending and with notice of a suit to remove the appointor 
 for misconduct, had to bear his own costs. 
 
 Executors instituting an improper administration suit or causing 
 
 , unneces- 
 
 werechargedpersonally with costs (jRfcAar&Y.^^t Gen. of sary liti- 
 Jamaica, 13 Jar. 1 97); so, trustees for infants persisting in un- S'^''^°° > 
 necessary litigation (Ca?«jo5e/?v. Campbell,2 My. §• C. 25). 
 
 A trustee using his legal estate so as to give an undue or using 
 
 -1 1, ,• 1 1 /> theirlegal 
 
 advantage to one party, was made personally liable lor estate 
 costs (Scott Y. Dunbar, 1 Mol. 442). And where a trus- ™faixly, 
 
 ^ . . ' _ or for 
 
 tee brought his cestui-que-trust into court, in order to their own 
 have a point relating to his own private interest deter- ^ ^^^ '^^^' 
 mined at the expense of the trust, he paid costs (^Henley 
 V. Philips, 2 Atk. 48). In a suit to rectify a settlement, 
 a trustee setting up for his own advantage a different 
 trust from what it really was, got no costs (^Balh v. Mont- 
 gomery, 2 Ves. Jun. 191). And a trustee, alleging the 
 forfeiture of an annuity, in a bill for payment of arrears of 
 it, paid costs personally (^Lloyd v. Spillet, 3 P. TV. 344). 
 
 Where rents were allowed to fall into arrear in con- or quar- 
 sequence of disputes between the trustees, the Court between 
 made them pay the costs of a suit by the tenant for life ^'^f'^- 
 
 . . . selves; 
 
 for payment of the income to him ( Wilson v. Wilson, 2 K. 
 249). 
 
 Trustees and executors pertinaciously refusing to ac- or re- 
 count will have to pay the costs of the suit up to the account" 
 hearing, but will get their subsequent costs on fairly 
 accounting {ante, pp. 107, 122, and the cases there cited ; 
 see, also, Collins \. Reece, 1 Coll. 675 ; and see, also, 
 ante, pp. 108, 109, as to the distinction between per- 
 tinacious refusal and mere neglect by executors to ac- 
 count). Trustees and executors misstating accounts will or mis- 
 stating 
 
300 
 
 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAR PERSONS. 
 
 accounts ; 
 
 or re- 
 fusing to 
 act with- 
 out the 
 sanction 
 of the 
 Court in 
 a clear 
 case, 
 
 though 
 their con- 
 duet is 
 bona-fide ; 
 
 be charged with costs (^Sheppard v. Smith, 2 Bro. P. C. 
 372 ; Flanagan v. Nolan, 1 Moll. 86 ; Reech v. Kennegal, 
 1 Ves. 123); but see Sandys v. Watson, 2 Atk. 80; 
 Lilley V. Medlicott, 5 W. R. 412 ; Lodge v. Pritchard, 4 
 Gijf. 294. 
 
 Again, trustees and executors will be charged with 
 costs if they refuse to act without the sanction of the 
 Court in a clear case (see the cases cited, ante, p. 123, and 
 infra ; but see also Angier v. Stannard, 3 My. §■ K. 566 ; 
 Taylor v. Glanville, 6 Mad. 17 7). In the case last cited, 
 it was said that ' trustees are entitled to the protection, 
 and direction of the Court in the exercise of their trusts, 
 and can never be called upon to pay costs, unless they 
 refuse to act without suit merely from obstinacy and 
 caprice. It would be against the interests of society to 
 hold otherwise.' In Angier v. Stannard, loc. cit., a bare 
 trustee making an untenable objection to the execution of 
 a conveyance was relieved from costs, as he had acted 
 bona fide and on advice of counsel ; and see Knight v. 
 Martin, \ R. ^ M. 70. But the more recent cases cited 
 below have gone further than these cases, and trustees, 
 though acting bona fide, but with unreasonable caution, 
 have been made to pay costs. In Burrows v. Greenwood, 
 4 Y. §• C. 251, trustees of a will refusing to pay a sum of 
 money to which their testator was liable under a settle- 
 ment, had to pay costs, but out of the testator's estate. 
 So a trustee must pay costs, if he refuses to convey the 
 legal estate, according to the proper direction ( Willis v. 
 Hiscox, 4 My. Sf C. 197 ; Hampshire v. Bradley, 2 Col. 
 34 ; Jones v. Lewis, 1 Cox, 199, where in a suit for 
 specific performance by the executrix of a deceased 
 vendor, his trustee, refusing to convey, had to pay all 
 the costs of the suit, including the purchaser's) ; but will 
 be entitled to costs if full and accurate information has 
 not been given to him {Holford v. Phipps, 3 Beav. 434) ; 
 and see Angier v. Stannard, cited above ; and Poole v. 
 Pass, 1 Beav. 600, where the trustee's costs, charges, and 
 
COSTS OF TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ETC. 301 
 
 expenses were also allowed. And in Whitmarsh v. 
 Robertson, 1 Y. 8f C. C. C. 115, a, trustee refusing to 
 transfer to an assignee was allowed his costs, though a 
 transfer was directed, tliere being circumstances of sus- 
 picion, and the consideration not correctly stated on the 
 deed. The most difficult position for trustees is, perhaps, 
 where they are asked to transfer settled funds to or by 
 the direction of the tenant for life and one of the cestuis- 
 que-trust in remainder under an appointment by the 
 tenant for life. See Firmin v. Pulham, 4 De G. §■ iS'. 99, 
 where the trustees refusing paid costs ; Camphell v. 
 Home, I Y. ^ C. C. C. 664 ; Cockcroft v. Sutcliffe, 4 W. 
 JR. 339, 25 L. J. ch. 313, 2 Jur. n. s. 323, where they 
 were not allowed any costs ; and Kinff v. King, 1 De G. 
 is: J- 663, where they were allowed costs. In Cockcroft 
 V. Sutcliffe, loc. cit., the trustees do not seem to have 
 taken any pains to satisfy themselves of the propriety of 
 the transaction. Trustees for the separate estate of 
 a married woman will have to pay costs, if they refuse to 
 transfer the funds into the name of the married woman 
 {ThorbyY. Yeats, \ Y. ^ C. C. C. 438); so, where the 
 wife's trustees refuse to transfer by direction of husband 
 and wife {Penfold v. BoucJi, 4 Ha. 271); but see In re 
 Bendy she, 5 W. R. 816, where the trustees, under similar 
 circumstances, were held to be justified in paying the 
 funds into court. And see as to the cases where trustees 
 paying money into court under the Trustee Kelief Act 
 will or will not be allowed, or be made to pay costs, ante, 
 ch. V. sec. ii. 
 
 The trustee of a marriage settlement may not refuse or asking 
 to compel payment of a sum of money secured by a jnde'mnity, 
 covenant without an indemnity from his cestui- que-trust ^° which 
 (but see Parsons v. Spooner, 5 Ha. 110); and the trustee not en- 
 had, therefore, to pay the costs of a suit to compel him to *''^^'"^ > 
 enforce the covenant {Kirby v. Mash, 3 JT. §• C 295). 
 So, where a trustee puts next of kin or an heir at law to or being 
 the proof of their pedigree in a case in which there is no abiylS^m-' 
 
302 
 
 COSTS AFFECTING PARTICULAK PERSONS. 
 
 tious as to 
 a matter 
 of fact. 
 
 Trustees 
 not pro- 
 tected by 
 acting on 
 counsel's 
 advice. 
 
 Costs of 
 trustees 
 retiring 
 from the 
 trust. 
 
 doubt, or the evidence, which satisfies the Court, has 
 been submitted to the trustee before suit, he must pay the 
 costs thereby occasioned (^Lowson v. Copeland, 2 Bro. C. 
 C. 156 ; Lancashire v. Lancashire, 1 De G. §• S. 288). 
 And executors of trustees were decreed to pay the costs 
 of a suit rendered necessary by their refusal to accept 
 reasonable evidence of a person's death; but, as the 
 trustees had been guilty of a breach of trust, out of the 
 trustees' assets {Lyse v. Kingdon, 1 Col. 184). 
 
 Although the circumstance of trustees having acted 
 on the advice of counsel, however eminent, will not in 
 itself entitle them to the costs of the suit {JDevey v. 
 Thornton, 9 Ha. 232 ; and see Angler v. Stannard, 3 My. 
 ^ K. 566 ; King v. King, \ De G. §• J. 663) ; or even 
 save them from paying costs {Boulton v. Beard, 3 De G. 
 M. §• G. 608) ; yet where the question is whether they 
 should be allowed in their accounts the costs of unsuccess- 
 ful proceedings bona fide taken by them on the advice of 
 counsel with reference to the trust property, it is a 
 material circumstance {Foster v. Dawber, 6 W. B. 47 ; 
 apd see Forshaw v. Higginson, 8 De G. M. §• G. 827). 
 
 A trustee cannot, from mere caprice, retire from the 
 trust without paying the costs thereby occasioned {For- 
 shaw V. Higginson, 20 Beav. 485 ; Gardiner v. Dotcnes, 
 22 Beav. 395 ; and see Greenwood v. Wakeford, 1 Beav. 
 576 ; Marshall v. Sladden, 7 Ha. 428). Any circum- 
 stances arising in the administration of the trust which 
 have altered the nature of his duties, justify him in 
 leaving it, and entitle him to receive his costs {Forshaw 
 V. Higginson, loc. cit, where the trustee was held to 
 be justified in retiring in consequence of his co-trustee's 
 conduct; but as no relief was asked against the co- 
 trustee, the retiring trustee was not allowed the costs 
 of the evidence respecting his conduct) ; but if the 
 reasons for the trustee's retirement are personal to 
 himself, he should pay the costs of a new appointment 
 {ibid.). In Gardiner v. Downes, loc. cit, a survivor of 
 
COSTS OF TRUSTEES, EXECUTORS, ETC. 303 
 
 three trustees of advanced age was allowed his costs. In 
 Howard Y. Rhodes, 1 K. 581; Porter v. Watts, 16 Jur. 
 757, trustees insisting on retiring without sufficient reason, 
 were not allowed costs, but did not pay any. Where the 
 trustees of a marriage settlement desired to retire in con- 
 sequence of the responsibility entailed on them by the 
 acts of the tenant for life, incumbering his interest, the 
 tenant for life had to pay the costs of the suit ( Coventry 
 V. Coventry, 1 K. 758). 
 
 As to the costs of trustees in proceedings under the 
 Trustee Acts, see ante, ch. v. sec. iii. ; and under the 
 Trustee Eehef Act, ante, ch. v. sec. ii. ; and, further, as 
 to the costs of executors and administrators generally, 
 see ante, ch. iv., sec. ii. 
 
 Where trustees ordered to pay costs personally paid 
 them out of the trust funds, they were ordered to refund 
 with interest at 4 per cent. (^Attorney General v. Daugars, 
 12 W. R. 363). 
 
304 
 
 Attornies 
 and solici- 
 tors not to 
 commence 
 an action 
 for fees till 
 one month 
 after deli- 
 Tery of 
 their bills. 
 
 CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 ON THE DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Section I. — Delivery of Bills of Costs. 
 
 It would seem that, independently of any statutory enact- 
 ment, the right of a solicitor to recover by action at law 
 for professional work and labour done, is like that of any 
 other creditor, and that Courts of law and equity have 
 no inherent right to direct a prior delivery and taxation of 
 his bills of costs (see (7oM)<feZZv. Neale, 1 C. B. N. S. 332 ; 
 Ex parte Lord Cawdross, 5 M. ^ W. 545 ; Ex parte 
 Arrowsmith, 13 Ves. 125). From an early period, how- 
 ever, this right has been regulated by various Acts of 
 Parliament, passed for the purpose of restraining attornies 
 and solicitors from commencing actions for their costs 
 until they have delivered bills of such costs, and for 
 empowering Courts of law and equity to refer such bills 
 for taxation. 
 
 By the 37th section of the 6th & 7th Vict., c. 73 (' The 
 Attornies and Solicitors' Act'), which partially reenacts the 
 provisions of earlier statutes, it is provided : — ' That from 
 and after the passing of this Act no attorney or solicitor, nor 
 any executor, administrator, or assignee * of any attorney 
 or solicitor, shall commence or maintain any action or suit 
 for the recovery of any fees, charges, or disbursements f 
 
 * An assignee in bankruptcy is within the Act {Re Walton, i K. ^J. 78). 
 
 t Those payments o«/y which are made in pursuance of the professional 
 duty undertalien by the solicitor, and which he is bound to perform, or 
 which are sanctioned as professional payments by the general and esta- 
 blished custom and practice of the profession, ought to be entered and 
 allowed as professional disbursements in the bill of costs {Be Remnant, U 
 Bcav. 603). "Where legacy and .probate duties, estimated at £liO, were 
 
DELIVERY OF BILLS OF COSTS. 305 
 
 for any business done by such attorney or solicitor, until 
 the expiration of one month* after such attorney or soli- 
 citor, 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 t 
 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, and which bill shall either be 
 subscribed | with the proper hand of such attorney or 
 solicitor (or, in the case of a partnership, by any of the 
 partners, either with his own name or with the name or 
 style of such partnership), or of the executor, adminis- 
 trator, or assignee of such attorney or solicitor, or be 
 
 payable, in order to make available certain funds in court, and the 
 solicitor, at the request of the client, engaged to pay them, and took a charge 
 on the funds for £140 and interest, and then paid the duties, amounting to 
 £78 only, it was held that that sum formed a proper item in his account 
 on the taxation of his bill of costs (i?e 5f&on, 9 Beav. 5). Money lent 
 (Hemmings v. Wilton, 4 C. 4~ ^- 318), or paid in consequence of an under- 
 taking to pay debts and costs in an action in which the attorney is not 
 professionally engaged {Prothero t. Thomas, 6 Taunt. 169 ; and see Re Lees, 
 5 Beav. 410), does not seem to be within the section ; secus if the monies 
 were expended in the course of proceedings in which the attorney was him- 
 self engaged (iojJ^am V. Byde, 1 C. # M. 128 ; Fearne v. Wilson, 6 5. # 
 Cr. 86 ; Ee Bedson, ante ; but see Cowdell t. Neale, 1 C. B. N. 8. 332). 
 
 Agency business done by one firm of solicitors for another ( Smith v. Dimes, 
 4 Ecch. 32; Billing \. Coppock, 1 Exch. li ; Re Strother, 3 K. ^ ,7. 518 ; 
 Re Gedye, 23 Beav. 347 ; and see Harvey v. Mayhem, 2 W. R. 128 ; Re 
 Taylor, 18 Beav. 165 ; Jones t. Roberts, 8 Sim. 397) is within the Act. 
 
 When the solicitor retained his bill in his possession, and refused to pro- 
 duce it. such bill was presumed to be taxable {Re Loughborough, 23 Beav. 
 439 ; and see Re Ingle, 21 Beav. 275). 
 
 * A calendar month is meant (s. 48 of the Act) (Ryalls r. Reg. 12 Jur. 
 458). It is to be calculated exclusively of the days on which the bill is 
 delivered and the action brought (Blunt v. Heslop, 8 Ad. 4~ Ell. 577). 
 
 t The bill must be left for, not merely shown to, the client (see Bhipps 
 T. Daubeny, 1 Q. B. 514 ; Crowder v. Shee, 1 Camp. 437). 
 
 \ An unsigned bill, accompanied by a signed letter, referring to the bill, is 
 sufficient {Re Bush, 8 Beav. 66). An unsigned bill of costs may be referred 
 to taxation by the party chargeable, if he chooses to waive the irregularity 
 {Re Fender, 8 Beav. 290 ; on appeal, 2 Phil. 69 ; Re Foster, 2 Be G. F. Sf J. 
 114 ■ Re Gedye, 14 Beav. 56) ; but he is not bound to do so {Billing v. 
 Coppock, 1 Exch. 14). An unsigned bill, delivered more than twelve months, 
 can only be taxed under special circumstances {Re Gedye, ante). 
 
 X 
 
306 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS, 
 
 What con- 
 stitutes 
 delivery. 
 
 VTTiat acts 
 solicitor 
 may do 
 before de- 
 livery of 
 bill. 
 
 enclosed In or accompanied by a letter subscribed in like 
 manner referring to such bill.' 
 
 The Act is to be construed liberally for the client 
 {Engleheart v. Moore, \5 M. ^ W. 548). 
 
 Where the clients were liable on a joint contract, a 
 delivery of the bill to one of them was held sufficient 
 {Mant V. Smith, 4 //. §• N. 324). A delivery to the 
 authorised agent {Re Bush, 8 Beav. 66), or servant 
 {Macgregor-v.Keiley, 3 Exch. 794) of the client is sufficient. 
 But not a delivery to his solicitor {Re Abbott, 4 L. T. n. s. 
 576), or to a friend or relation {Gridley v. Austen, 16 
 Q. B. 504, 511). Leaving the bill at the office of an 
 attorney where the party chargeable, having no place of 
 business of his own, occasionally called, and wrote letters, 
 and directed communications to be addressed to him, is, 
 it seems, sufficient {Spyer v. Bernard, 8 L. T. n. s. 396). 
 If the action is brought against the client's executors, a 
 delivery to him in his lifetime is sufficient {Reynolds v. 
 Caswell, 6 Taunt. 193 ; under the 2 Geo. II., c. 23, 
 which contained a similar enactment ; and see Tate v. 
 Hitchens, 7 C. B. 875). A letter addressed to the pro- 
 visional committee of a railway company, of which A. 
 was a member, and delivered to another member of the 
 committee at his place of business, is not a delivery to A., 
 within the statute {Edwards v. Lawless, 5 Rly. Ca. 357). 
 
 A bill of costs signed by the attorney, and headed in 
 the matter of business, but not addressed to any one, 
 was inclosed in an envelope, and sent by post to the client : 
 it was held that there was a sufficient delivery within the 
 Act {Roberts v. Lucas, 11 Exch. 41 ; and see Manning v. 
 Glyn, 1 Jones Ir. Ex. Rep. 513; Taylor v. Hodgson, 3 
 Dowl. 8f Low. 115). 
 
 Notwithstanding the statute, a solicitor or attorney 
 may, before delivering his bill, set off a bill of costs 
 {Lester v. Lazarus, 2 C. M. Sf R. 665), or prove in bank- 
 ruptcy {Ex parte Prideaux, 1 Gl. Sf Jam. 28 ; and see 
 Ex parte Dewdney, 2 Rose, 29 ; Ex parte Steele, 16 Ves. 
 
DELIVERY OF BILLS OF COSTS. 307 
 
 166) ; or sue on a promissory note received on account of 
 fees {Jeffreys v. Evans, 14 M. &: W. 210). It should be 
 remembered, too, that the summary jurisdiction given by 
 the Act does not preclude the client from filing a bill 
 in chancery against his solicitor for an account ( O^Brien 
 V. Lewis, 9 Jur. n. s. 321). 
 
 The contents of the bill need not be proved (6 & 7 
 Vict. c. 73, s. 37). But the other party may show that 
 the bill delivered was not a bonajide compliance with the 
 Act (ibid.). 
 
 The client must specially plead the non-delivery of the at- Non-deli- 
 torney'sbill in defence to an action by the attorney (iV/c^v/a/i ^?[7 . 
 v. Huddock, 10 Doiol. Pr. Ca. 311 ; Lane v. Glenny, 4 Ad. be pleaded. 
 ^y Ell. 83 ; and see Hitchens v. Tate, 7 C. B. 873). 
 
 The common order for delivery, after reciting that the 
 petitioner desires to obtain the papers in the possession of 
 the solicitor belonging to him, and that the solicitor 
 refuses to deliver up the same till his bill is paid, and, 
 although applied to, has not delivered his bill, and sub- 
 mitting to pay what shall appear to be due, directs ' that 
 the solicitor do, within a fortnight after notice hereof, 
 deliver to the petitioner a bill of fees and disbursements 
 in all suits, causes, and other matters of business in which 
 he has been employed as the attorney or solicitor for the 
 petitioner ; and that it be referred,' &c. (see post, p. 316 ; 
 Set. 831). 
 
 The proper mode of enforcing delivery of the bill is to How- 
 serve the order for delivery with a proper endorsement, enforced. 
 under the 23rd Cons. Ord. r. 10, and an attachment 
 will issue as of course {Re Bowen, 9 Jur. n. s. 662, 11 
 W. R. 607 ; Ex parte Belton, 25 Beav. 368). As to the 
 costs of motions to compel delivery of papers, &c. see 
 ante, p. 36. The application to compel delivery of the 
 bill, and of deeds, &c., except when the order is of course, 
 must now be made by summons in Chambers {\st rule of 
 Order of Auff. 2, 1864:). 
 When a bill has once been delivered, the solicitor can- Effect of 
 
 delivery. 
 
308 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 not make, nor can the Taxing Master permit any altera- 
 tions in it, except by consent {Be Catlin, 18 Beav. 519 ; 
 Be Andrews, 17 Beav. 510; Be Wells, 8 Beav. 416 ; and 
 see Be Jones, id. 479 ; Be Carven, id. 436), or special 
 leave {Be Walters, 9 Beav. 303 note). But the same 
 rule does not prevail in the case of a taxation as between 
 party and party (per Sir John Eomilly, M. E., in Davis v. 
 Earlof Dysart,1\ Beav. 124). As to the mode in which 
 the application to alter a delivered bill must be made, and 
 the evidence by which it must be supported, see 1 SmitKs 
 Chanc. Pr. p. 151, 7 th ei 
 
 Section II. — Form of Bills of Costs. 
 
 General ' The bill of costs is intituled in the cause or matter. In 
 
 preparing it the business should be entered under the terms 
 in which it is transacted, and at the head of each term the 
 year should be placed ; but it is not desirable to distin- 
 guish the vacation from the term. The bill of costs 
 should be copied bookways, and there should be a broad 
 margin on the left-hand side for taxation. It is a great 
 convenience in taxation to have the year and month 
 placed at the top of each page ; dates should by no means 
 be put in the left-hand column, as they confuse the taxa- 
 tion, and may be cast up amongst the deductions. They 
 may be conveniently placed immediately within the 
 margin, and should be large and legible, and scored under. 
 It is of great importance in a bill where many attendances 
 are charged, or journeys taken, to be very accurate in fur- 
 nishing dates, and the time occupied on attendances and 
 journeys, where the fees for the same are regulated by 
 time. In journeys, also, distances should be stated, and 
 the actual expenditure should be accurately given ; it will 
 also be necessary to show that the solicitor charging for 
 a journey was not occupied upon any other business 
 during the time so charged for. 
 
FORM OF BILLS OF COSTS. 309 
 
 ' Bills of costs for business done in relation to different 
 matters or different estates are frequently made out 
 under different heads, in the following manner : — " Costs 
 
 relating to letting farm ; " " Costs relating to the 
 
 settlement of the claim of A. B." Where the items are 
 mere strict charges in suits, motions, petitions, and like 
 applications, this answers very well ; but where attend- 
 ances are charged, the correct mode of making out the 
 whole bill is by following the order of date. Where at- 
 tendances are charged under different heads of business 
 transacted contemporaneously, repetition of the same 
 attendances is almost unavoidable, and the trouble that 
 the Taxing Master experiences in duly checking bills of 
 costs so made out, is as great as it is needless. 
 
 ' The bill of costs should be prepared from the pay- 
 ments made, and the attendances entered ' (2 Smith's Ch. 
 Practice, 7th ed. 113). 
 
 The bill, or some accompanying letter or other docu- what 
 ment {Taylor v. Hodgson, 3 Dowl. Sf Low., 115 ; Lucas sWd be 
 V. Roberts, 11 Exch. 41), must specify the parties sought bills of 
 to be chaxgeA {Gridley v. Austen, 16 Q. B. 504; Champ '^°^'^- 
 V. Stokes, Q H. ^ N. 683), the Court in which the business 
 charged for was done {Lewis v. Primrose, 6 Q. B. 265 ; 
 Dimes v. Wright, 8 C. -B. 831 ; and see Ivimey v. Marks, 16 
 M. §• W. 843 ; and Engleheart v. Moore, 15 M. &^ W. 548), 
 and the name of the cause {Martendale v. Falkner, 2 C. B. 
 706 ; but see Cozens v. Graham, 12 C. B. 398); semble it 
 is sufficient, however, if the name of the cause appears in 
 one of the items of the bill {Anderson v. Boynton, 13 
 Q. B. 308 ; and see Keene v. Ward, ibid. 308) ; and, as a 
 general rule it is sufficient if the bill gives such informa- 
 tion as will enable the client to obtain advice as to the 
 taxation {Haigh v. Ousey, 7 Ell. Sf Bl. 578; Cook v. 
 Gillard, I Ell. ^ Bl. 26 ; Sargent v. Gannon, 7 C. B. 
 742). And the biU need not be drawn in the technical 
 form of a debtor and creditor account {Holmes v. Magrath, 
 5 Ir. Law Rep. 376), 
 
310 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 The bill should specify the particular items charged for 
 (see Brew v. Clifford, 2 Car. §• P. 69). 
 
 Thus, payments in respect of counsels' fees should 
 specify the particular fee paid {He Smith, 4 Beav. 309). 
 Particular attendances should be specified {Re Pender, 
 10 Beav. 390), and where deeds are charged for, the 
 number of folios in the deeds should be stated (per V. C. 
 Wood, in Re Foster, 1 L. T. n. s. 130). 
 
 A delivery of a bUl containing only the items of the 
 extra costs, and omitting items of taxed costs, which had 
 been received from the other side, was held not to be a 
 compliance with the provisions of the 2 Geo. II., c. 23, 
 s. 23, as to delivery ( Waller v. Lacy, \ M. ^ Gr. 54) ; and 
 it seems that if the bill contains, amongst other items, 
 certain extra costs, not mentioning the taxed costs, it is 
 bad under the modem statute {Pigot v. Cadman, I H. Sf 
 N. 837 ; and see Ivimey v. Marks, cited above). For 
 precedents of bills of costs see -post, App. No. 3. 
 
 Section III. — Taxation under Orders of Course. 
 
 Eeference The 37th Section of the 6th and 7th Vict., c. 73, pro- 
 of bills for ., , , ,. . » , , , , 
 taxation, vides that ' upon the application of the party chargeable 
 
 by such bill ' (i. e. the bill required to be delivered by the 
 preceding clause of the section) ' within one month, it 
 shall be lawful, in case the business contained in such 
 bill or any part thereof shall have been transacted in the 
 High Court of Chancery, or in any other Court of 
 Equity, or in any matter of bankruptcy or lunacy, or in 
 case no part of such business shall have been transacted 
 in any Court of law or equity, for the Lord High Chan- 
 cellor,* or the Master of the Eolls, and in case any ^art 
 
 * These words include the Vice ChanceUors (ife Carew, 8 Beav. 128 ; Be 
 Howard, 8 Beav. 424). As a general rule, the application need not be made 
 to the Judge who beard the cause {Bohms v. Mills, 1 Beav. 227 ; and see 
 Be Elmslie, 12 Beav., where the suits were dismissed and stayed). But the 
 rule is different where the merits of the cause must enter into the discussion 
 
TAXATION UNDER ORDERS OF COURSE. 311 
 
 of such business shall have been transacted in any other 
 Court, for the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, 
 Exchequer, Court of Common Pleas at Lancaster, or 
 Court of Pleas at Durham, or any Judge of either of them, 
 and they are hereby respectively required, to refer such 
 bm, and the demand of such attorney or solicitor, execu- 
 tor, administrator, or assignee, thereupon to be taxed and 
 settled by the proper officer of the Court in which such 
 reference shall be made, without any money being brought 
 into Court ; and the Court or Judge making such refer- 
 ence shall restrain such attorney or solicitor, or executor, 
 administrator, or assignee of such attorney or solicitor, 
 from commencing any action or suit touching such demand 
 pending such reference ; and in case no such application Taxation 
 as aforesaid shall be made within such month as aforesaid, ^o^f^"" 
 then it shall be lawful for such reference to be made as 
 aforesaid, either upon the application of the attorney or 
 solicitor, or the executor, administrator, or assignee of 
 the attorney or solicitor, whose bill may have been so 
 as aforesaid delivered, sent, or left, or upon the applica- 
 tion of the party chargeable by such bill, with such direc- 
 tions and subject to such conditions as the Court or Judge 
 making such reference shall think proper ; and such 
 Court or Judge may restrain such attorney or solicitor, 
 or the executor, administrator, or assignee of such attorney 
 or solicitor, from commencing or prosecuting any action 
 or suit touching such demand pending such reference, 
 upon such terms as shall be thought proper.' The judge 
 may authorise an action before the month has expired, on 
 satisfactory proof that there is probable cause for believ- 
 ing that the party chargeable is about to leave England 
 (ibid.). 
 
 Questions frequently arise as to the meaning of the ■ Paity 
 words, ' the party chargeable by such bill.' It has been <=^^'^p- 
 
 {Webb-v. Grace, 12 Beav. 489). Where an order of course made at the 
 Eolls for the taxation of a solicitor's bill of costs of a suit is not made in 
 such suit, an application to discharge the same should be made at the Eolls 
 {Be Sell, iN.E. 497). 
 
312 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Applica- 
 tion of 
 
 Costs of 
 unneces- 
 sary 
 
 special ap- 
 plication. 
 
 held that a married woman, having separate estate, which 
 she has agreed to make liable for the costs of a solicitor re- 
 tained by her, is a party ' chargeable ' within the section 
 (Wauffh V. Waddell, 16 Beav. 521 ; and see Murray v. 
 Barlee, 3 My. §• K. 209 ; Re Pugh, 17 Beav. 338). So, 
 too, the next friend of an infant {Re Fluker, 20 Beav. 
 143); the executors {Jefferson v. Warrington, 7 M.Sf W. 
 137), or assignees in bankruptcy {Clarkson v. Barber, 
 
 7 Dowl. 87) of the party originally liable, are parties 
 chargeable within the Act ; but an insolvent is not {Re 
 Halsall, 11 Beav. 163); nor an outlaw {Re Mander, 6 
 Q. 5. 867). A party in contempt, however, may apply 
 for and proceed with taxation {Neioton v. Ricketts, 11 
 Beav. 67). A married woman should apply by her next 
 friend {Re Waugh, 15 Beav. 508). Where several per- 
 sons are jointly chargeable, they should concur in the 
 application {Re Lewin, 16 Beav. 608 ; Ex parte Mobbs,8 
 Beav. 499; Re Perkins, 8 Beav. 241); and an order 
 obtained by one of them alone on an allegation that he 
 alone employed the solicitor, will be discharged as irre- 
 gular {Re Perkins, ante). But it seems that if one of the 
 parties so liable refuses to concur, the order may be ob- 
 tained by the other {Lockhart v. Hardy, 4 Beav. 224 ; 
 Re Hair, 10 Beav. 187). In Ex parte Ford, 23 L. J. ch. 
 515, taxation was ordered on the application of one party, 
 the retainer having been separate. See, too, Re Stephen, 
 2 Ph. 562. 
 
 The application under the clause set out above is ex 
 parte and of course {Re Pender, 2 Ph. 69 ; 7 Beav. 487 ; 
 Re Gaitshell, 1 Ph. 576 ; Re Becke, 5 Beav. 406 ; Ex parte 
 Ellis, 2 L. r. H. s. 233 ; Holland v. Gwynne, re Burch, 
 
 8 Beav. 184). Where a special petition was unnecessarily 
 presented, the petitioner was ordered to pay the costs 
 {Re Bignold, 9 Beav. 269 ; Re Atkinson, 26 Beav. 151 ; 
 Barwell v. Brooks, re Cattlin, 8 Beav. 121). On the 
 other hand, a solicitor will be ordered to pay the costs of 
 a special application rendered necessary by his refusal to 
 consent to the common order {Re Adamson, 18 Beav. 460), 
 
TAXATION UNDER ORDERS OF COURSE. 313 
 
 or by his breach of an agreement {£x parte Bailey, 3 Jur. 
 n. s. 33). 
 
 The fact that an action has been commenced, does not In what 
 necessarily make a special application necessary (see Set. 0^001^86^' 
 on Deer. 3rd ed. 841). But where a solicitor delivered a irregular. 
 bill of costs, with a cash account at the foot which showed 
 a balance due to him larger than the amount of the bill, 
 and then brought an action for the whole amount, it was 
 held that a special apphcation must be made (i?e Yates, 3 
 N. R. 508). So where the bill forms part of a settled 
 account (i?e Holland, 19 Beav. 314), or the bill forms 
 one of two bills, the other having been paid (i?e Hinton, 
 15 Beav. 192), or the retainer is questioned (i?e Thurgood, 
 19 Beav. 541 ; Re Ingle, 21 Beav. 275 ; Re Eldridge, 12 
 Beav. 387), or there has been an order to change solicitors 
 Gillow V. Rider, 15 C. B. 729), or the costs have been 
 referred to arbitration (i?e IVinterbotham, 15 Beav. 80), or 
 where there has been an agreement that the solicitor 
 shall have interest in the annual rents and a lien on the 
 estates recovered (i?e Moss, 17 Beav. 59). 
 
 The fact, however, that an agreement exists between the Where 
 solicitor and the client as to the costs to be charged does not ^ftween" 
 itself make a special application necessary ( Re Philp, 2 Giff. client and 
 35, from the Taxing Master's certificate in which case it the subject 
 seems that even under the common order of course to tax °^ °°^'^- 
 the. Taxing Master will have regard to an agreement by 
 the solicitor to charge only costs out of pocket). But 
 wherever an agreement of a special kind exists, it would 
 seem proper to apply sjDeoially (see Re Ransom, 18 Beav. 
 220; Re Gedye, 23 Beav. 347 ; Re Ingle, 21 Beav. 275 ; 
 Re Fisher, 18 Beav. 123). Indeed, in the earlier cases 
 it appears to have been thought that the existence of a 
 special agreement prevented the Court from ordering 
 taxation at all, until the agreement had been set aside by 
 bill (Re Whitcomle, 8 Beav. 140 ; Barwell v. Brooks, re 
 Cattlin, 8 Beav. 121 ; Re Rhodes, 10 Beav. 224; and see 
 Re Eyre, 10 Beav. 569, on appeal, 2 Ph. 367). But these 
 cases have been long overruled. 
 
314 DELIVEEY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Validity of 
 agree- 
 ments that 
 solicitor 
 shall take 
 gross sum 
 in lieu of 
 costs. 
 
 Order of 
 course to 
 tax one of 
 several 
 bills. 
 
 Order of 
 course if 
 irregular 
 cannot be 
 supported 
 on the 
 merits. 
 
 Where a client obtained an order of course for taxation, 
 and there existed an agreement between them which 
 ought to have been nientioned, but which was in the posses- 
 sion of the solicitor, the Master of the Kolls, although he 
 regarded the order of course as irregular (see ante), 
 refused to discharge it (iZe Ingle, 21 Beav. 275). 
 
 It should be remembered that an agreement by a soli- 
 citor to take a gross sum in lieu of costs, although viewed 
 with great jealousy, is not absolutely void (jRe Whitcomhe 
 8 Beav. 140) ; but an agreement to charge a fixed sum in 
 lieu of costs hereafter to be incurred, is ipso facto void 
 (i?e Newman, 30 Beav. 196 ; and see Re Ingle, cited 
 above). When a solicitor, in addition to his costs, charged, 
 according to agreement, a commission of £5 per cent, on 
 property recovered for his client, such commission was 
 disallowed, although included in a settled account (^Pince v. 
 Beattie,\\ W. R. 979). 
 
 An order of course to tax two bills only where five are 
 claimed is irregular (iZe Law, 21 Beav. 481 ; Holland v. 
 Gwynne, 8 Beav. 124; Re Wavell, 22 Beav. 634). But 
 the fact that some of the items in the bill happen to be 
 included in an existing order to tax costs in a suit, is no 
 objection to an order of course {Re Fluker, 20 Beav: 143). 
 
 An order of course obtained in a case where a special 
 application is necessary, will be discharged, even though 
 right upon the merits {Harris v. Start, 4 M. §• C. 261 ; 
 Grove v. Sansom, 1 Beav. 297 ; Gregg v. Taylor, 1 Beav. 
 123) ; the suppression of circumstances which, if stated 
 to the Court, would have made a special application 
 necessary, such as a special agreement {Re Moss, 17 Beav. 
 59), or a previous reference of the costs to arbitration {Re 
 Winterbotham, 15 Beav. 80), or a payment of one of two 
 bills of costs {Re Hinton, 15 Beav. 192, and comp. Re 
 Holland, 19 Beav. 314 ; Re Thurgood, ibid. 541 ; Re 
 Walker, 14 Beav. 227 ; and see ante) being itself a 
 a ground for discharging the order of course (see, however. 
 Re Ingle, 21 Beav. 275, cited ante, p. 313 ; and Re David, 
 
TAXATION UNDER ORDERS OF COURSE. 315 
 
 * 
 
 30 Beav. 278, where, in an action by a client against his 
 solicitor, the latter pleaded his bill of costs by way of set- 
 off, and the client obtained an order for the delivery of 
 the bill, and suffered himself to be non prossed ; and it was 
 held that it was not necessary to state these circumstances 
 on an ex parte application for taxation), and the fact 
 that the special circumstance is disputed by the client, 
 makes no difference {De Feucheres v. Daices, 11 Beav. 46). 
 The irregularity in the order will be waived, however, if Waiver of 
 the solicitor attends the taxation, or otherwise acts upon i^^jfy ' 
 the order {Be Wavell, 22 Beav. 634 ; Be Field, 16 Beav. 
 593). So, upon a petition for consequential directions 
 after taxation, it was held to be too late to object that the 
 application ought to have been a special one (iZe Hair, 
 11 Beav. 96). Where, after a solicitor had delivered his 
 bin of costs, he executed a deed of assignment of all his 
 property, which became binding on all his creditors under 
 the Bankruptcy Act 1861, and the client afterwards 
 obtained the common order to tax, it was held that the 
 solicitor, by going in before the Taxing Master and 
 defending himself by affidavits, had precluded himself 
 from objecting to the order {Be Bartrum, 12 W. B. 660 ; 
 see, too. Be Bevan, 12 W. B. 196). 
 
 The common order for taxation directs ' that it be referred Form of 
 to the Taxing Master to tax and settle the said bill (or "^urse" 
 biUs), and that the petitioner, and also the said solicitor, 
 do produce before the said Master, upon oath, as he shall 
 direct, all books, papers, and writings in their custody or 
 power respectively, relating to the matters hereby referred, 
 or any of them : and that they be examined touching the 
 same matters, or any of them, as the said Master shall 
 direct ; and it is ordered that the said solicitor do give 
 credit for all sums of money by him received of or on 
 account of the petitioner, and be at liberty to charge all 
 sums of money paid by him to or on account of the peti- 
 tioner ; and it is ordered that if the said bill (or bills), 
 when taxed, be less by a sixth part than the said bill (or 
 
316 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OP COSTS. 
 
 bills) as delivered, the said Master do tax the costs of the 
 petitioner of this reference, and if the said bill (or bills), 
 when taxed, shall not be less by a sixth part than the 
 said bill (or bills) as delivered, the said Master do tax the 
 costs of the petitioner of this reference, and if the said bill 
 (or bills), when taxed, shall not be less by a sixth part 
 than the said bill (or bills) as delivered, the said Master 
 do tax the costs of the said solicitor of such reference ; and 
 it is ordered that the said Master do certify the amount 
 due from the petitioner to the said solicitor, or from him 
 to the petitioner, as the case may be, having regard to the 
 costs of such reference so to be taxed as aforesaid, and any 
 sum or sums of money which may have been so received 
 or paid as aforesaid ; and it is ordered that the amount so 
 to be certified be paid within twenty-one days after service 
 of this order, and of the Taxing Master's certificate, to be 
 made in pursuance thereof, unless the Court shall, upon 
 special circumstances to be certified by the said Master, 
 otherwise order, upon application to be made within one 
 week after the date of the said Master's certificate, by the 
 party liable to pay such amount ; and it is ordered, that 
 upon payment by the petitioner to the said solicitor of 
 what may be certified to be due to him as aforesaid, or in 
 case it shall appear that there is nothing due to him, he, 
 the said solicitor, do deliver to the petitioner upon oath all 
 deeds, books, papers, and writings in his custody or power 
 belonging to the petitioner ; and it is ordered that no 
 proceedings at law, or otherwise, be commenced against the 
 petitioner in respect of the said bill (or bills) pending such 
 reference' (5'eifow, 3rd ed. pp. 828, 829). 
 After When action has been commenced, it proceeds as fol- 
 
 commen- ^^^^ '■ — ' -^^^ ^* ^® Ordered that all further proceedings at 
 ced. law against the petitioner in respect of the said bill be 
 
 stayed pending such reference ; but the petitioner is to 
 carry this order and the said bill of costs into the office 
 
 of the said Master on or before the day of , and 
 
 in default thereof the said solicitor is to be at liberty to 
 
TAXATION UNDER ORDERS OF COURSE. 317 
 
 proceed with the said action at law, as if this order had 
 not been made ; and it is ordered that either party be at 
 liberty to prosecute this order ; and the said Master is to 
 
 make his certificate in a fortnight from the day of 
 
 , unless the said INIaster shall certify that further 
 
 time is necessary to enable him to make his certificate, 
 or this order is to be of no effect ; and in case the said 
 Master shall not state any special circumstance in his said 
 certificate, and shall certify that there is anything due 
 from the petitioner to the said solicitor, it is ordered that 
 the amount so certified be paid by the petitioner to the 
 said solicitor ; and in default of such payment being made, 
 the said solicitor is to be at liberty at any time after two 
 days from the filing of the said Master's certificate, with- 
 out service of this order or of such certificate, to sue 
 out execution against the petitioner hj fieri facias, writ of 
 elegit, or otherwise, for the amoun-t which may be so 
 certified to be due as aforesaid ' ( Seton on Decrees, 3rd 
 ed., pp. 841, 842). 
 
 Under the common order for taxation, the Master is Powers of 
 bound to take a general account of receipts and payments -^^^ 
 by the solicitor as agent to the client {Russel v. under 
 Buchanan, 9 Sim. 167 ; Cooper v. Ewart, 2 Ph. 362) ; "ourse^for 
 but see Jones v. James, 1 Beav. 307 ; Re Smith, 4 Beav. taxation. 
 309, 9 Beav. 182, from which it would seem that the 
 Master is not, under such an order, authorised to take an 
 account of pecuniary matters between the solicitor and 
 client generally, but must confine himself to payments by 
 the client, on account of the bill of costs, unless by agree- 
 ment between the solicitor and client the monies coming 
 into the hands of the solicitor are to be applicable to pay- 
 ment of the bill of costs. See observations on these cases 
 in Cooper v. Ewart, 2 Ph. 362. 
 
 But the Taxing Master is not authorised to allow Intorcst or 
 interest on balances of monies of the client in the hands P™^'^- 
 of the solicitor {Jones v. James, 1 Beav. 307); nor can he 
 charge the solicitor with profits {Re Savery, 13 Beav. 424). 
 
318 DELIVEET AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 TJnprofes- In Waring v. Williams, 2 Beav. 1, it was held that a 
 sionai solicitor ought to have credit for various items in his bill 
 of costs (if due), though entirely unconnected with pro- 
 fessional employment. See as to this, post, sect. v. 
 Improper Under the common order to tax, the Master may take 
 '"""^e™ into consideration the costs of improper (^Wiggins v. 
 ings. Peppin, 2 Beav. 403 ; Re Atkinson, 26 Beav. 151) or 
 
 informal proceedings ( Clayton v. Meadows, 2 Hare, 34). 
 Monies out It seems that, under the usual taxation order, a solicitor 
 of pocket. |g entitled, in the absence of negligence or improper con- 
 duct, to be allowed all monies paid out of pocket (iZe 
 Page, 32 Beav. 487 ; 9 Jur. n. s. 1116 ; 11 JV. R. 584). 
 As to the power of the Taxing Master to go into a 
 question of retainer on an order of course, see ante, p. 312. 
 Where The order should not direct the solicitor to deliver up 
 
 claimsUen ' ^^ Papers belonging to. the petitioner' if the solicitor has 
 a Hen on some of the papers {Re Pender, 8 Beav. 299). 
 But in a later case the Court refused to discharge an 
 order of course in which such a direction was inserted, 
 although the solicitor claimed a lien, on the ground that 
 if he had a lien he would be protected when application 
 was made to the Court for the delivering up of the papers 
 (Re Teague, 11 Beav. 318). 
 
 Section IV. — Taxation on Special Applications. 
 (a) bbfoee payment. 
 
 The 37th section of 6 & 7 Vict., c. 73, provides that no 
 such reference as aforesaid (see ante, p. 310) shall be 
 directed upon an application made by the party chargeable 
 with such bill after a verdict shall have been obtained or 
 a writ of inquiry executed in any action for the recovery 
 of the demand of such attorney or solicitor, or executor, 
 
TAXATION ON SPECIAL APPLICATIONS. 319 
 
 administrator, or assignee of such attorney or solicitor, or 
 after the expiration of twelve months after such bill shall 
 have been delivered, sent, or left as aforesaid, except 
 under special circumstances, to be proved to the satisfac- 
 tion of the Court or Judge to whom the application for such 
 reference shall be made.' Twelve months after delivery- 
 even, an unsigned bill can only be referred for taxation 
 under ' special circumstances ' (iZe Gedye, 14 Beav. 56). 
 
 ' To entitle a client to taxation under this clause, he What are 
 must show one of two thinss — either pressure or gross over- ' PP^^'^'^I 
 
 ° _ -"^ _ ° circum- 
 
 charge, amounting to what this Court designates as fraud ' stances.' 
 (per V. C. Wood, in Re Strother, 3 K. §• J. 528). 
 
 The question as to what constitutes pressure or gross over- 
 charge amounting to fraud more frequently arises on applica- 
 tion to tax after payment, the authorities on which question 
 are considered in the next part of this section (post, p. 321). 
 As a general rule, the same circumstances which would be 
 considered 'special,' so as to justify taxation after payment, 
 will be held to justify taxation under the clause cited 
 above (but see observations of V. C. Wood, In re Strother, 
 3 K. S(^ J. 532 ; and Re Williams, 15 Beav. 417, post). 
 It seems, however, that the Court may order taxation under 
 this clause on grounds which could not arise in the case of 
 an application for taxation after payment. Thus a dis- 
 pute as to the bUl being completed has been held to be a 
 ' special circumstance ' justifying taxation more than 
 twelve months after delivery {Re Bagshawe, 2 De G. 
 §• Sm. 205 ; Binns v. Hay, 13 L. J. Q. B. 28 ; see, 
 too, dicta in Re Mander, 6 Q. B. 871 ; and Hughes v. 
 Murray, 9 L. T. n. s. 93). So the continuance of the 
 relationship of solicitor and client after the delivery and 
 until directly before the application for taxation, is always 
 a material circumstance (see observations of L. J. Knight 
 Bruce in Re Nicholson, 3 De G. F. §• J. 93, 100). But 
 the possession of the papers in the cause by the solicitor 
 (Re Gedye, 14 Beav. 56), and the fact that he has com- 
 menced an action against the client (^Bennett v. Hill, 21 
 
320 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OP COSTS. 
 
 L. T. 101), have been held not to be circumstances justify- 
 ing the reference for taxation. 
 Should af- It was said by Lord Cranworth, in He Barnard, 2 De G. 
 for nol " M. gf G. 365, that the special circumstances relied on 
 applying ' must be such as to afford a reasonable excuse for not 
 
 sooner. . /> i • i i t 
 
 applymg sooner, not circumstances oi which the client 
 could reasonably have availed himself before.' See, how- 
 ever, this observation explained by V. C. Wood, in Be 
 Strother, 3 K. 8f J. 527. Thus, in the case just cited, 
 taxation was ordered under this clause upon a petition 
 presented more than twelve months after delivery on the 
 ground of gross overcharges amounting to fraud, coupled 
 with misrepresentations by the solicitor in accounting for 
 one of the items overcharged, notwithstanding that the 
 client knew of the circumstances, and had another legal 
 adviser within a month of the delivery, and might reason- 
 ably have availed himself of those circumstances to pre- 
 sent the petition within the twelve months {Be Strother, 
 3 K. Sf J. 518). In another case (Be Williams, 15 Beav. 
 417) taxation was ordered eighteen months after delivery, 
 the bill having been delivered long after application, just 
 as the client was going abroad, and containing substantial 
 overcharges not acquiesced in. 
 Be mchol- In a recent case the solicitor had acted for the chent 
 from 1833 to 1857, and during that period received and 
 paid large sums of money on his account. In November 
 1853, the solicitor delivered to his client his account 
 current from 1833 to that time, and in it took credit for 
 twenty-seven bills of costs, which he delivered at the same 
 time. The solicitor afterwards, in February 1857, and 
 June 1857, delivered continuations of his accounts, taking 
 credit in them for subsequent bills of costs, which were 
 delivered along with the accounts in which they were in- 
 cluded. None of the accounts were ever settled. In 
 July 1857, the relation of solicitor and client was deter- 
 mined, and the client placed the matter in the hands of a 
 fresh solicitor, In March 1858, the last account was 
 
 son. 
 
TAXATION ON SPECIAL APPLICATIONS. 321 
 
 delivered, with another bill of costs. In April 1858, the 
 client presented a petition for taxation of all the bills, 
 showing considerable items of overcharge. It was held 
 that a taxation of all the bills ought to be directed, 
 though most of them had been delivered more than twelve 
 months before the petition was presented (Re Nicholson, 
 3 De G. F. §■ J. 93). 
 
 But where in an action brought by a solicitor against Be Bar- 
 his client, upon his bill of costs, the client obtained an 
 order for taxation on the terms of withdrawing all his pleas 
 except that of nunquam in debitatus, and afterwards he with- 
 drew all his pleas, and applied to the Judge for an order 
 of taxation, under the 6 & 7 Vict., c. 73, which was re- 
 fused for want of jurisdiction, it was held that the client 
 could not obtain an order for taxation from the Court of 
 Chancery, there being no special circumstance beyond 
 mere overcharge (i?e Barnard, 2 De G. M. §• G. 359). 
 In this case it seems to have been thought that the 
 jurisdiction given by the Act did not exist when the 
 solicitor had obtained judgment in his action. 
 
 "V\Tiere an action had been brought by an attorney for where 
 £68, being the balance of untaxed costs, more than twelve '*^°™®y 
 months after the dehvery of the bill, and it appeared that take less 
 before action the attorney had oifered to take £40 in full, amount of 
 the bill was ordered to be taxed (^Hughes v. Murray, 9 L. T. biU. 
 n. s. 93). 
 
 Special applications for taxation must now be made by 
 summons in Chambers (1st rule of Order of August 2, 
 1864). 
 
 (b) AFTEE PAYMENT. 
 
 The 41st section of the 6 & 7 Vict., c. 73, enacts that 6&7Viet. 
 ' the payment of any such bill as aforesaid ' {i. e. any bill "• ' > *■ ■ 
 the taxation of which is provided for by the preceding 
 sections of the Act, see ante, pp. 304, 305, and notes thereto. 
 Ee Downes, 5 Beav. 425), ' shall in no case preclude the 
 Court or Judge to whom application shall be made from 
 
322 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OE COSTS. 
 
 Whether 
 security 
 equivalent 
 to pay- 
 ment. 
 
 Eetainerof 
 monies by 
 solicitor 
 not equi- 
 valent to 
 payment. 
 
 referring such bill for taxation, if the special circumstances 
 of the case shall in the opinion of such Court or Judge 
 appear to require the same, upon such terms and conditions 
 and subject to such directions as to such Court or Judge 
 shall seem right, provided the apphcation for such reference 
 be made -within twelve calendar months after payment.' 
 The application must now be by summons in Chambers, 
 see ante, p. 321. 
 
 The giving of security is for the purpose of this 
 section equivalent to payment (iZe Boyle, 3 De G. M. 
 §• G. 540 ; Re Harper, 10 Beav. 284 ; Re Currie, 9 
 Beav. 602). But in a case at common law {Re Harries, 
 13 M. &^ W. i) it was held that if a client gave the 
 solicitor a bill of exchange or promissory note for the 
 amount of his bill, the twelve months mentioned in this 
 section ran not from the time when the bill or note was 
 given, but from the time when it was actually paid, unless 
 there were circumstances in the case to show that the 
 contrary was the intention of the parties. See, too. Re 
 Drake, 22 Beav. 438 ; Sayer v. Wagstaffe, 5 Beav. 415. 
 
 But it is clear that the mere retainer by the solicitor out 
 of monies in hand of the amount of his bill, without any 
 settlement of accounts, is not equivalent to payment {Re 
 Bignold, 9 Beav. 269 ; Re Steele, 20 L. J. ch. 562); nor 
 an agreement entered into by the solicitor with his chent, 
 an ignorant person, that the solicitor shall receive a 
 fixed sum in lieu of his costs {Re Ingle, 21 Beav. 257 ; 
 Re Newman, 30 Beav. 196); nor a compromise effected 
 under circumstances of pressure followed by payment of a 
 gross sum {Re Stephen, 2 Ph. 562) : it being settled that 
 the payment of a gross sum to a solicitor in discharge of 
 his claim without any bill of costs being delivered, does 
 not disentitle the client to have a proper bill delivered 
 and taxed {Re Blackmore, 13 Beav. 154). In such cases, 
 therefore, no special application is necessary. 
 
 Under special circumstances, however, such as the 
 lapse of a number of years, during which the rio-ht to 
 
TAXATION ON SPECIAL, APPLICATIONS. 323 
 
 retain the money has not been questioned, a retainer 
 may be treated as equivalent to payment {^Ex parte 
 Shackell, Re Vines, 2 De G. M. ^- G. 842). 
 
 The application under this section was formerly by Applica- 
 petition served on the solicitor. It was held that the ^^g. °^ 
 petition should state when payment was made (Re Mash, 
 15 Beav. 83). It is now made by summons in Chambers 
 {1st rule of Order of August 2, 1864). 
 
 It should be presented as soon as possible after pay- Effect of 
 ment, the unexplained lapse of several months being in prgggut^^- 
 itself an objection to the application, even though the whole petition. 
 period of twelve months has not elapsed (Re Bayley, 18 
 Beav. 415, where the delay was for eleven months ; Re 
 Pugh, 32 Beav. 173, where it was for ten months; Re 
 Browne, 1 De G. M. §• G. 322, where it was for nine 
 months). See, too. Re TVMcher, 13 ili". §• W. 569 ; 2 
 Dowl. §• L. 407, where it was said that the special 
 circumstances relied on ought to be ' circumstances newly 
 come to the knowledge of the client ; ' and Re Pugh, 32 
 Beav. 173, 175, on appeal, 11 W. R. 762, where the 
 Master of the EoUs stated that the reason why the Court- 
 would not allow taxation after payment where there had 
 been delay in making the application, was that the solicitor 
 might lose his vouchers,' or, no objection being made to 
 his bill, he might not think it necessary to preserve them, 
 and so might be deprived of the means of proving the 
 facts material for the allowance of money items. See, 
 too, ante, pp. 319, seq. 
 
 The ' special circumstances ' which induce the Court to what are 
 order taxation after payment are : first, pressure ; and ' ?P^'^"^ 
 secondly, ' overcharges amounting to evidence of fraud ' stances.' 
 (see ante, p. 319, as to taxation twelve months after 
 delivery). 
 
 Cases of 'pressure' usually occur where the solicitor, 'Pressure.' 
 having deeds in his possession which it is of importance ^if^t^to 
 to the client to obtain, refuses to deliver up such deeds deliver up 
 unless his bill is paid. Thus, where a deed was necessary jegg pay" 
 
 Y 2 
 
324 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OP COSTS. 
 
 Payment 
 following 
 imme- 
 diately 
 after 
 delivery. 
 
 Other 
 cases of 
 pressure. 
 
 for the completion of a purchase, but the solicitor refused 
 to deliver it up, unless hia bill was paid, taxation was 
 ordered under the 41st section of the Act {Re Tryon, 7 
 7 Beav. 496 ; Re Pugh, 32 Beav. 173, 176, s. c. on 
 appeal, 11 W. R. 762; Re Bennett, 8 Beav. 467; Re 
 Wells, 8 Beav. 416). So, again, where a solicitor for a 
 mortgagee refused to allow a redemption of the mort- 
 gaged premises on a transfer of the mortgage to take 
 place, unless the mortgagor paid his bill {Re Alcock, 
 ex parte Wilkinson, 2 Coll. 92). In such cases the fact 
 that the bill has not been delivered in sufficient time to 
 enable the client to examine it before payment is always 
 a material circumstance. Thus, where the bill was not 
 delivered until the day appointed for the completion of a 
 transfer of mortgage, taxation was ordered, notwithstand- 
 ing payment {Re Philpotts, 18 Beav. 84 ; see, too. Re 
 Alcock, ex parte Wilkinson, ubi supr., where the bill was 
 not delivered until the evening of a Saturday, the day 
 appointed for payment of the mortgage being the follow- 
 ing Monday). Again, in Re Ranee, 22 Beav. 177 
 (where, however, there were also items of overcharge), 
 the bill was delivered to the mortgagor four days before 
 payment, there being at the time legal proceedings pend- 
 ing against him, and the Court, considering it a mixed 
 case of pressure and overcharge, ordered taxation (see, 
 too, Re Jones, cited post; Re Sladden, 10 Beav. 488; 
 and Re Elmslie, 12 Beav. 538, where the biU was de- 
 livered the evening before it was paid). 
 
 The fact that the solicitor is about to enforce his 
 securities by legal proceedings {Re Ranee, ubi sup. ; Re 
 Kinneir, 7 W. R. 175), or by a sale {Re Sladden, 10 
 Beav. 488), is of importance as evidencing pressure. In 
 a late case {Re Foster, ex parte Walker, 2 De G. F. 8f J. 
 105) the solicitor, who had a security on his client's 
 furniture, farming stock, &c., with a power of sale, gave 
 notice that unless his bill was paid on the same day he 
 should take possession under his bill of sale, and accord- 
 
TAXATION ON SPECIAL APPLICATIONS. 325 
 
 ingly did so, and the client paid the bill under protest. 
 On proof that the bill contained items to a considerable 
 amount subsequent to the security, and on proof of over- 
 charges, the bill was ordered to be taxed, although it had 
 been delivered four months before payment ; see, too, 
 JVokes V. Warton, 5 Beav. 448, where the client had had 
 time to examine the bill, and had actually obtained pro- 
 fessional advice respecting it, and had obtained a consider- 
 able deduction. Again, where solicitors had acted for 
 the committee of a pro'visionally registered company who 
 compromised their claim by paying them a fixed sum in 
 lieu of their biU, under pressure of threats that the solici- 
 tors would act adversely to the wishes and policy of the 
 committee, a member of such committee was, notwith- 
 standing payment, held entitled to have the bill taxed (i?e 
 Stephen, 2 Ph. 562, 577). 
 
 Where the bill had been delivered a month before pay- Where 
 ment, the Court held that no case of pressure had been made elapses™ 
 out {Re Jones, 8 Beav. 479) ; so where the period which between 
 elapsed between delivery and payment was nearly three and pay- 
 weeks (iZe Harrison, 10 Beav. 57), or a fortnight {Re ™^°'- 
 Neate, 10 Beav. 181), or even a week {Re Welchman, 11 
 Beav. 319; comp. Re Mash, 15 Beav. 83), and where 
 the bill is paid voluntarily and without pressure, it seems 
 that the fact of the payment following immediately upon 
 the delivery wiU not of itself warrant a taxation {Re 
 Drew, 10 Beav. 368; Re Fyson, 9 Beav. 117; Re 
 Currie, 9 Beav. 602) ; but, coupled with other cir- 
 circumstances, it may be material {Re Currie, uhi 
 sup. ; Re Abbot, 18 Beav. 393). Indeed, if the client 
 is in the power or at the mercy of the solicitor, — if 
 the bills delitered be not sufficiently explanatory, — if the 
 client, though having time to examine the biUs, has not 
 been able to obtain, or has not been allowed to employ 
 the most effective means of examination, — if it appears that 
 the solicitor in whose power the client is is driving a bar- 
 gain with him on unequal terms, and that the relation of 
 
326 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 solicitor and client, and the power of the solicitor con- 
 tinues, the Court may order taxation, notwithstanding the 
 client has had an opportunity of examining the bill before 
 paying it {Nokes v. Warton, 5 Beav. 448). 
 
 In a recent case an arrangement had been made for a 
 transfer of a mortgage, in respect of which the mortgagee 
 had instituted a foreclosure suit, and the bill of costs was 
 not delivered until the day of completion, but was not paid 
 for fourteen days after delivery, and the Master of the 
 EoUsjin the absence of any evidence of overcharge, refused 
 to order taxation (-Re Towle, 30 Beav. 170). In this case 
 it was stated that the proper course for the mortgagor to 
 have adopted was to have obtained the usual order to tax 
 the bill, and an order to stop the suit on payment of what 
 was due on the mortgage and on deposit of what was claimed 
 Over- to be due for the costs. Indeed, it would seem that in all 
 mi^f be cases where taxation is asked for, on the ground of pressure, 
 shown, some items of overcharge must be chosen (Ee Hubbard, 
 pressure. 15 Beav. 251 ; Be Abbott, 18 Beav. 393), although not 
 necessarily overcharges so great as to be evidence of 
 fraud (i?e Wells, 8 Beav. 416). In a case before the 
 Lords Justices (Re Finch, ex parte Barton, 4 De G. M. 
 §• G. 108) a mortgagor, without giving six months' notice, 
 requested his mortgagee to accept payment and transfer 
 the mortgage, and the transfer being executed, the 
 mortgagor's solicitor paid the bill of costs of the mort- 
 gagee's solicitor in full — though he objected to certain 
 items, amounting to £9 in all — in order to obtain the deeds, 
 which the mortgagee's solicitor refused to deliver up with- 
 out such payment. It was held that no case of pressure 
 entitling the mortgagor to taxation had been made 
 out. 
 
 A solicitor delivered his bill of costs to his client, made 
 out in double columns, one being the amount allowed on 
 taxation, which he refused to accept when tendered. The 
 client then paid the larger sum to obtain his papers ; it 
 was held, notwithstanding the payment, that he was 
 
TAXATION OjST SPECIAL APPLICATIONS. 327 
 
 entitled to an order to tax the bill, as he had been con- 
 strained to pay the larger sum by the refusal of the solici- 
 tor to accept what he himself had stated that he was legally 
 entitled to {Ex parte Josland, re Letts, 31 Beav. 488 ; see, 
 too, Hughes v. Murray, 9 L. T. n. s.93; ante, p. 321). 
 
 Where a bill of costs was delivered on the completion 
 of a purchase, to which the solicitor was a party, and he 
 refused to complete the purchase without payment, it was 
 held that the circumstances evidenced pressure, and justi- 
 fied taxation after payment, notwithstanding five months 
 had elapsed before the presentation (i?e Pugh, 32 Beav. 
 173 ; on appeal 11 W. R. 762). 
 
 The fact that payment is made under protest does not Payment 
 of itself entitle the client to taxation (i?e Welchman, 1 1 ™teg(; 
 Beav. 319; Re Harrison, 10 Beav. 57; Re Stirke, 11 
 Beav. 304; Re Neate, 10 Beav. 181; Re Browne, 15 
 Beav. 61 ; and see Re Finch, ex parte Barton, cited 
 above). Coupled with other circumstances, however, it 
 may become material {Re Alcock, ex parte Wilkinson, 2 
 Coll. 92 ; and comp. Re Foster, ex parte Walker, 2 De 
 G. F. §• J. 105; Re Dearden, 9 Exch. 210). Where a 
 bill is paid under protest, the particular items objected to 
 should, if possible, be pointed out before payment {Re 
 Davie, ex parte White, 8 W. R. 15). 
 
 ' The doctrine of pressure in cases of taxation after Doctrine of 
 payment is not to be extended ' (per Sir John Eomilly, in ^ot^^ob'e 
 Re Barrow, n Beav. 54^1 ; and see Re Hubbard, 15 Beav. extended. 
 253 ; Re Mash, 15 Beav. 83). See, too, Re Broivne, 1 
 De G. M. ^ G. 322, where it was said that to constitute 
 a case for taxation after payment on the ground of pres- 
 sure, the pressure must have been of such a kind as to 
 have rendered it impossible or difficult to have had the 
 costs taxed before payment and in the ordinary course. 
 Comp., too. Re Boyle, ex parte Turner, 5 De G. M. §• G. 
 540, where the solicitor pressed for payment, but offered 
 to give the client an opportunity of taxation, apprising 
 him that it would be difficult to have the bill taxed after 
 payment. 
 
328 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Over- When there is no pressure, the Court will only order 
 
 charges taxation on proof of ' overcharges amounting to evidence 
 to evidence of fraud.' Thus a petition to reopen a paid billj in which 
 only trifling items of overcharge are pointed out, will be 
 dismissed with costs {Re Drake, 8 Beav. 123 ; Re 
 Mast be Thompson, 8 Beav. 237). The petition, too, should point 
 stated. out very specifically the overcharges on which it is in- 
 tended to rely {Re Browne, 1 De G. M. §• G. 322, 333 ; 
 Dunt V. Dunt, re Colquhoun, 9 Beav. 146; and see Re 
 Thompson, ubi sup. ; Re Harrison, 10 Beav. 57 ; Re 
 Towle, 30 Beav. 170 ; though it is not necessary to specify 
 aU the items objected to Re Dawson, 28 Beav. 605 ; 
 comp. Ex parte Andrews, 13 L. J. ch. 222) ; secus if the 
 solicitor refuses to produce the bill {Re Loughborough, 23 
 Beav. 439). deepest, p. 329. 
 Onus lies The onus of showing that the charges in question are 
 
 on peti- , . f T T t 
 
 tioner. Overcharges amounting to iraud lies on the applicant 
 Wlatover- {Re Towle, 30 Beav. 170). Thus, if the practice in the 
 suffiien™' Taxing Master's offices as to allowing the charges 
 to open a impugned be in uncertainty, the Court will give the solicitor 
 the benefit of such uncertainty {Re Walsh, 12 Beav. 440). 
 Charges for attendances to the extent of eight on one day 
 are not necessarily sufficient to open a paid bill {Re 
 Towle, ubi sup.). Nor charges for 240 letters in one 
 year {Re Boyle, ex parte Turner, 5 De G. M. §• G. 546), 
 it being ' impossible without knowing the circumstances 
 of each case to give an opinion of the fairness of the 
 charge' {ibid.). So again, where the ground of over- 
 charge was that abstracts charged for contained less than 
 ten folios in each sheet, the strict rule being that each 
 sheet should contain that number, the petition was 
 dismissed with costs, there being some doubt as to the 
 practice on the subject in the Taxing Master's offices {Re 
 Walsh, 12 Beav. 490). 
 Liability It seems that an item objected to, not because the 
 disputed, ^^gi^ggg charged for was not done, or because the charge 
 was excessive, but because the liability to pay it is dis- 
 
TAXATION ON SPECIAL APPLICATIONS. 329 
 
 puted, is not such an overcharge as to be a sufficient 
 ground for taxing a paid bill (^Re Finch, ex parte Barton, 
 4 De G. M. ^ G. 108, 113). 
 
 But when a considerable portion of the bill is for what 
 business, which in the exercise of a fair and honest dis- ^i>ffi'='^°t- 
 cretion ought never to have been done, the Court will 
 direct taxation under this section (i?e Barrow, ubi sup.) ; 
 and the same course will be adopted when the application 
 is made by a legatee for the taxation of a bill paid by 
 the executors, and the items objected to are of a con- 
 siderably greater amount than would be allowed to the 
 executors in a suit to administer the testator's estate {Be 
 Dickson, 8 De G. M. §• G. 655 ; see, too, Horlock v. 
 Smith, 2 My. §• Cr. 495, 520, there cited ; and Waters 
 V. Taylor, 2 M. Sj- C. 526). See, further, as to taxation 
 at the instance of a third party, post, p. 331. 
 
 Where the solicitor, immediately after payment, took Where bill 
 the bill of costs away with him and refused to produce it ^,„ ^ijg 
 afterwards, the Court ordered taxation, although no solicitor. 
 specific overcharges were pointed out {Re Loughborough, 
 23 Beav. 439 ; see, too. Re Stephen, 2 Ph. 562, 576 ; Re 
 Wyche, 11 Beav. 209). So where the solicitor, at the Orthto^e 
 time of payment, undertook to refund {Re Fisher, 18 t^Hn to 
 Beav. 183; see, too. Re Foljambe, 9 Beav. 402). Where refund. 
 there is evidence of actual fraud, the Court wiU always Where 
 reopen the bill (see observations in Re Harding, 10 Beav. fraud. 
 252 ; Nokes v. JVarton, 5 Beav. 448 ; Re Boyle, 5 De G. 
 M. ^ G. 545). 
 
 Where, on a petition being presented for taxation of a where 
 paid bill, the solicitor offered to pay some of the items ob- s^icitor 
 jected to, and the petitioner nevertheless brought on his pay items 
 petition for hearing, the Court ordered taxation, treating °''J®<='^^^ *°- 
 those items as omitted {Re Catlin, 23 Beav. 4:12 ; but see 
 Fx parte Hemming, 28 L. T. 144). 
 
 For the purpose of calculating the twelve months How 
 within which the petition must be presented, it was con- ^q[^s 
 sidered as presented on the day of answering it (Sayer v. calculated. 
 
330 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OP BILLS OP COSTS. 
 
 Twelve 
 months 
 absolute 
 bar to 
 taxation, 
 under Aet, 
 
 but not to 
 delivery. 
 
 Opening a 
 paid bill on 
 bill filed. 
 
 Porm of 
 order. 
 
 Wagstaff, 5 Beav. 415). But see now 1st rule of Order 
 of August 2, 1864. 
 
 Where a petition was presented within the twelve 
 months, but no order was made, the Court refused to 
 allow it to stand over for amendment, twelve months 
 having in the meantime expired {Barwell v. Brooks ; Me 
 Catlin, 7 Beav. 345; 8 Beav. 121). 
 
 After the twelve months have elapsed, a paid bill can- 
 not be reopened under the Act {Re Harper 10 Beav. 
 284 ; Re Dowries, 5 Beav. 425 ; ex parte Pemberton, 
 2 De G. M. §• G. 960); unless, perhaps, actual fraud 
 be shown (per Lord Cranworth in Ex parte Pemberton, 
 ante). And the rule is the same in the case of an appli- 
 cation by a third party (see post, p. 331, Re Massey, 8 
 Beav. 458) ; even though the payment may have taken 
 place behind his back (-Ke Rees, 12 Beav. 256). 
 
 But the Court may order delivery of the bill, though 
 more than twelve months have elapsed from its payment, 
 the solicitor having, on payment, undertaken to deliver the 
 bills, but neglected to do so {Re Foljambe, 9 Beav. 402). 
 
 A paid bill may be reopened after the twelve months 
 on bill filed; though a Court of Equity is very reluctant to 
 adopt such a course ( see Turner v. Hand, 27 Beav. 561 ; 
 Blagrave v. Routh, 2 K. ^ J. 507 ; on appeal 8 De G. M. 
 Sf G. 620 ; Todd v. Wilson, 15 L. J. ch. 450 ; Stanes 
 V. Parker, 10 Jur. 603 ; Foley v. Smith, 12 Beav. 154). 
 And the right of the client to file a bill for an account is 
 in no way interfered with by the Statute ( O'Brien v. Lewis, 
 9 Jur. n. s. 321). 
 
 The following form of an order for taxation after pay- 
 ment is given in Seton on Decrees, 3rd ed., p. 843 : — 
 
 ' Refer, &c., to tax and settle the bUls of costs 
 
 Nos. and , amounting respectively to £ 
 
 and £ , delivered by M. (solicitor) in the petition 
 
 named to the petitioner E. (see ante, 321), and paid by him 
 on behalf of the petitioners, as in the petition mentioned ; 
 and let the said M. and the petitioners produce, &c. ; and let 
 
TAXATION BY THIRD PARTY. 331 
 
 the said M. give credit, &c. \_ante, p. 315]; and In case it 
 shall appear that the said bills or either of them are or is 
 overpaid, let the said Master certify the amount overpaid ; 
 and let the said M. within, &c. [ante, pp. 316, 317] repay 
 to the petitioner E. what shall be certified to be the 
 amount so overpaid by him ; and the said Master is to be 
 at liberty to state any circumstances specially at the 
 request of either party, as he shall think fit. Reserve 
 the consideration of costs of taxation and petition until 
 after certificate ' {Re Mole, V. C. K 5th Nov. 1846, 
 B. 38). 
 
 Section V. — Taxation by Third Party. 
 
 It frequently happens that the person liable to pay the 6 & 7 Vict. 
 solicitor's bill is not the ' party chargeable ' within the " '^' 
 37th section (see ante, p. 311). Thus where a solicitor 
 is employed and paid by a mortgagee, the mortgagor, 
 although ultimately liable to pay the bill, would not be 
 entitled to tax it as a ' party chargeable ' under the above 
 section. This right, however, is given to him by the 38th 
 section of the Act, which provides ' that where any per- 
 son, not the party chargeable with any such bill within 
 the meaning of the provisions herein before contained, 
 shall be liable to pay or shall have paid such bill either to 
 the attorney or solicitor, his executor, administrator, or 
 assignee, or to the party chargeable with such bill as 
 aforesaid, it shall be lawful for such person, his executor, 
 administrator, or assignee, to make such application for a 
 reference for the taxation and settlement of such bill as 
 the party chargeable therewith might himself make, and 
 the same reference and order shall be made thereupon, 
 and the same course pursued in all respects, as if such 
 application was made by the party so chargeable with 
 such bUl as aforesaid.' Under this section a mortgagor who is 
 {Re Wells, 8 Beav. 416; Re Lees, 5 Beav. 410), or a '*^'"<i, 
 
332 DELIVEET AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 within sec- 
 tion. 
 
 Taxation 
 how ob- 
 tained. 
 
 On what 
 principle 
 ordered. 
 
 Serving 
 mortgagee. 
 
 second incumbrancer {Re Taylor, 18 Beav. 165 ; Re 
 Jessop, 32 Beav. 406) may obtain taxation of a bill paid 
 by a mortgagee. But a mere volunteer under no previous 
 liability does not acquire a rigbt to tax a solicitor's bill 
 by paying it {Re Beche, 5 Beav. 406 ; and see Re Barber, 
 14 M. Sf W. 720). 
 
 "Where, however, a plaintiff and defendant compromised 
 a suit, the former agreeing to pay the latter's costs, it was 
 held that the plaintiff was entitled to an order of course 
 to tax the bill of costs delivered to him by the defendant's 
 solicitor (i?e Hartley, 30 Beav. 620; following Vincent 
 V. Venner, \ M.&^K.2\2; andBalme v. Paver, Jac. 305). 
 
 The proceedings under this section may be by order 
 of course in cases where a similar proceeding might 
 have been had under the 37th section (see ante, p. 312 ; 
 Re Bignold, 9 Beav. 269 ; Re Bracey, 8 Beav. 338 ; Re 
 Straford, 16 Beav. 27; Re Hartley, 30 Beav. 620). 
 Where the bill has been paid, or where more than twelve 
 months have elapsed from delivery, the taxation can only 
 be obtained on a special application, i. e. on summons in 
 Chambers {\st rule of August 2, 1864), and on showing 
 ' special circumstances ' (J?e Wells, 8 Beav. 416 ; Re 
 Carew, 8 Beav. 150 ; Re Beche, 5 Beav. 406 ; Re 
 Bignold, 9 Beav. 269). See, however. Re Drake, 22 
 Beav. 438 ; and cases cited, post, p. 334. 
 
 The taxation at the instance of a third party must be 
 as between the solicitor and his client, not as between the 
 solicitor and the third party {Re Wells, 8 Beav. 416; Re 
 Jones, 8 Beav. 479; Re Taylor, 18 Beav. 163; Re 
 Fyson, 9 Beav. 117; Re Barrow, 17 Beav. 547; see, too. 
 Re Baker, 32 Beav. 526). 
 
 In Re Abbott, 4 L. T. n. s. 576, it was said by the 
 Master of the Rolls that, although after a mortgagor had 
 paid a bill of costs, he could not, as between himself and the 
 solicitor, have it taxed except under special circumstances, 
 yet, as between himself and the mortgagee, he might have it 
 taxed under the 38th section of the Act. See, too. Re 
 
TAXATION Bif THIRD PAKTY. 333 
 
 Baker, 32 Beav. 526, and Re Jessop, 32 Beav. 406, where 
 the bill having been paid, the Master of the Rolls directed 
 the mortgagees to be served with a petition to tax. It is 
 respectfully suggested, however, notwithstanding the view 
 taken in these cases, that the Act gives the mortgagor no 
 right whatever against any person other than the solicitor, 
 and that the liability of the mortgagee is one which can 
 only be enforced on bill filed. 
 
 The 38th section further provides ' that in case such Additional 
 application is made when, under the provisions herein con- g^^stances 
 tained, a reference is not authorised to be made except may be 
 under special circumstances, it shall be lawful for the Court account. 
 or Judge to whom such application shall be made to take 
 into consideration any additional special circumstances 
 applicable to the person making such application, although 
 such circumstances might not be applicable to the party 
 so chargeable with the said bill as aforesaid if he was 
 the party making the application.' As to the force of 
 these words, see Re Vardy, 20 L. J. ch. 325. 
 
 The case of a biU with which a trustee, executor, or Where 
 administrator has become chargeable, is provided for by j^ charge-"" 
 the 39th section of the Act, which enacts ' that it shall be able. 
 lawful, in any case in which a trustee, executor, or admin- 
 istrator has become chargeable with any such bill as afore- 
 said, for the Lord High Chancellor or the Master of the 
 KoUs, if in his discretion he shall think fit, upon the 
 application of a party interested in the property out of 
 which such trustee, executor, or administrator may have 
 paid or be entitled to pay such bill, to refer the same, and 
 such attorney's or solicitor's, or executor's, administrator's, 
 or assignee's demand thereupon, to be taxed and settled 
 by the proper oiEcer of the High Court of Chancery, with 
 such directions and subject to such conditions as such 
 Judge shall think fit, and to make such order as such Judge 
 shall think fit for the payment of what may be found due, 
 and of the costs of such reference, to or by such attorney 
 or solicitor, or the executor, administrator, or assignee of 
 
334 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OP BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 such attorney or solicitor, by or to the party raaking such 
 application, having regard to the provisions herein con- 
 tained relative to applications for the like purpose by the 
 party chargeable with such bill, so far as the same shall 
 be applicable to such cases, and in exercising such discre- 
 tion as aforesaid, the said judge may take into considera- 
 tion the extent and nature of the interest of the party 
 making the application : provided always, that where any 
 money shall be so directed to be paid by such attorney or 
 solicitor, or the executor, administrator, or assignee of such 
 attorney or solicitor, it shall be lawful for such judge, if "he 
 shall think fit, to order the same, or any part thereof, to be 
 paid to such trustee, executor, or administrator so charge- 
 able with such bill, instead of being paid to the party 
 making such application ; and when the party making 
 such application shall pay any money to such attorney or 
 solicitor, or executor, administrator, or assignee of such 
 attorney or solicitor, in respect of such bill, he shall have 
 the same right to be paid by such trustee, executor, or 
 administrator so chargeable with such bill as such attor- 
 ney or solicitor, or executor, administrator, or assignee of 
 such attorney or solicitor, had.' 
 
 It would seem that the proceedings under this section 
 
 must always be by special application (Be Straford, 16 
 
 Beav. 27), i. e. by summons in chambers (1st rule of 
 
 August 2, 1864). 
 
 Whether It was Said by the Master of the Rolls in Be Drake, 22 
 
 charges Beav. 438, 443, that the rule which required a party seek- 
 
 amountmg ijjg ^o open a paid bill to show overcharges amounting to 
 
 must be fraud (see ante, p. 322, seq.) did not apply to an application 
 
 shown. under this section. See, too. Be Blachmore, 13 Beav. 54 ; 
 
 Be Dawson, 605 ; and s. e. 8 W. B. 554. But a contrary 
 
 doctrine was laid down by L. J. Turner in Be Dickson, 
 
 8 De G. M. §• G. 660, 661. 
 
 In Be Hallett, 21 Beav. 250, taxation was ordered 
 under this section of a bill incurred in respect of a trust 
 estate by deceased trustees, but the balance due from the 
 
TxVXATION BY THIED PARTY. 335 
 
 solicitor was ordered to be paid to a separate account, so as 
 to form an indemnity to the solicitor against a possible 
 breach of trust. 
 
 Taxation of a bill of costs due from executors for the Where 
 amount of which they had given a mortgage, may be ordered havTgiTeu 
 at the instance of a legatee {Re Brake, 22 Beav. 438.) mortgage. 
 
 It was said by the Master of the KoUs in Re Stori/, whether 
 ex parte Marwick, 8 W. R. 15, that the taxation under ^etwe^n'^^ 
 this section was as between the trustee and the cestui- trustee and 
 que-trust (see, too, observations in Re Drake, 22 Beav. ^^j^^ * 
 443), and that consequently the latter had no right to 
 question the trustees' retainer of a solicitor as between 
 himself and the solicitor, or to obtain an order for a se- 
 parate taxation of the soKcitor's bill, but only a right to 
 attend the taxation of the trustees, and to raise the ques- 
 tion of retainer as between himself and the trustees ; but 
 quere, and see ante, p. 332, and Grove v. Sansom, 1 Beav. 
 297. Indeed in most of the cases, reported taxation was 
 ordered as between the cestui-que-trust and the solicitor, 
 the trustee or executor never having been served or ap- 
 pearing (see however. Re Dowries, 5 Beav. 425). 
 
 The 40th section of the Act provides ' that for the pur- Sect. 40. 
 pose of any such reference upon the application of the 
 person not being the party chargeable within the meaning 
 of the provisions of this Act as aforesaid, or of a party 
 interested as aforesaid, it shall be lawful for such Court 
 or Judge to order any such attorney or solicitor, or the 
 executor, administrator, or assignee of any such attorney 
 or solicitor, to deliver to the party making such applica- 
 tion a copy of such biU, upon payment of the costs of such 
 copy : Provided always, that no bill which shall have been 
 previously taxed and settled shall be again referred unless, 
 under special circumstances, the Court or Judge to whom 
 such application is made shall think fit to direct a re-tax- 
 ation thereof.' See as to proceedings under this section 
 Re Blackmore, 13 Beav. 154. 
 
 The following is the form of an order of course to tax 
 
336 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 a bill on the application of a third party given in Seton on 
 Decrees, 3rd ed. p. 847 : 
 
 ' Upon the humble petition of B. of &c. (state the cir- 
 cumstances, that the petitioner (see ante, 321) some time 
 since agreed to take a lease of certain premises of one C, 
 who employed the above-named A. as his solicitor, to pre- 
 pare such lease, and the petitioner is liable to pay the said 
 A.'s bill for preparing the same), that the said solicitor on 
 or about the — day of — delivered unto the petitioner his 
 bill of fees and disbursements, which, as the petitioner is 
 advised, contains many unreasonable and extravagant 
 charges, and the same does not contain any item for 
 business done in any of the courts of law or equity, that 
 the petitioner submits to pay what shall appear to be due 
 to the said solicitor on the taxation of his bill. It was, 
 therefore, prayed, and it is accordingly ordered that it is 
 referred, &c., to tax and settle the said biU. And that the 
 petitioner, and also the said solicitor do produce, &c. And 
 that they be examined, &c. And it is ordered that if 
 such bUl, when taxed, be less by a sixth part than the said 
 biU as delivered, the said Master do tax the costs of the 
 petitioner of this reference. And if the said bill when 
 taxed shall not be less by a sixth part than the said 
 biU as delivered, the said Master do tax the costs of 
 the said solicitor of such reference. And it is or- 
 dered that the said Master do certify the amount due in 
 respect of said bill having regard to the costs of such 
 reference so as to be taxed as aforesaid. And it is 
 ordered that the amount so to be certified be paid within 
 twenty-one days after service of this order and if the 
 Taxing Master's certificate to be made in pursuance 
 thereof, unless the Court shall upon special circumstances 
 to be certified by the said Master otherwise order upon 
 application to be made one week after the date of the 
 said Master's certificate by the party liable to pay such 
 amount. And it is ordered, that no proceedings at law 
 or otherwise be commenced against the plaintiff in respect 
 
TAXATION BT THIRD PARTY. 337 
 
 of the said bill pending such reference, but the said Master is 
 to makehis certificate in a month unless the said Master shall 
 certify that further time is necessary to enable him to make 
 his certificate, or this order is to be of no effect ' (Rolls Form): 
 The form of an order made on a special application by 
 a legatee imder the 39th section of the Act is as follows: — 
 ' The petitioner (^ante, p. 321) B. (legatee) by his counsel 
 submitting to pay what, if any, shall appear to be due to A. 
 (soHcitor) upon the taxation of his bill of fees and disburse- 
 ments and for business done as hereinafter mentioned. Let 
 the said A. deliver to the petitioner a bill of all such fees, 
 charges, and disbursements over and above those included 
 ■ in the bills hereinafter mentioned which are now claimed 
 by the said A. against C. and D. as executors of the will 
 of E. deceased, the testator in the petition named, and 
 payable out of the residuary or general estate of the 
 testator. And refer, &c. to tax and settle the bill of fees 
 
 and disbursements amounting to the sum £ delivered 
 
 by the said A. to the said C. and D. as such executors, 
 and also the bill to be delivered to the petitioner afore- 
 said. And let the petitioner B. and the said C. and D. 
 and the said A. produce, &c., and be examined, &c. 
 (And let the said A. give credit for all sums of money 
 by him received of or on account of the said executors in 
 respect of the said bills of costs or either of them.) And 
 if the amount of the said bills so taxed shall be less by a 
 sixth part than the said bills as delivered, let the said 
 Master tax, &c. [anfe, p. 335] (exclusive of the costs of 
 the application). And let the said Master certify the 
 amount due from the said executors and the petitioner to 
 the said A., or from the said A. to the said executors and 
 the petitioner, or either of them, as the case may be, 
 having regard to the costs of such reference (exclusive of 
 the costs of this application). And let such amount be 
 paid, &c. unless, &c. [ante, p. 3 1 6]. No costs of this applica- 
 tion on either side (see Re Downes, M. E. 19 Feb. 1844 ; 
 A 581, 5 Beav. 425).' — Seton on Decrees, 3rd ed. p. 848. 
 
 z 
 
338 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Powers of 
 
 Taxing 
 
 Master. 
 
 Eeferenee 
 to be made 
 to what 
 Taxing 
 Master. 
 
 Taxing 
 Masters 
 to assist 
 each other. 
 
 Section VI. — Proceedings on Taxation generally. 
 
 The first rule of the 40th Consolidated Order thus de- 
 fines the powers and duties of the Taxing Masters : — ' The 
 Taxing Masters shall perform all such duties as were 
 formerly referred to or performed by the Masters in 
 Ordinary in relation to the taxation of costs, and shall in 
 respect thereof have all such powers and authorities as were 
 formerly vested in the Masters in Ordinary : To administer 
 oaths; to examine witnesses and parties; to order the pro- 
 duction and inspection of books, papers, and documents ; 
 to proceed de die in diem ; to make separate reports and 
 certificates ; to require that any party be represented by • 
 a separate solicitor; and to direct and adopt all such 
 other proceedings as might formerly be directed and 
 adopted by the Masters in Ordinary, on reference for the 
 taxation of costs, and taking accounts of what is due in 
 respect of such costs, and such other accounts connected 
 therewith as may be directed by the Court.' See further 
 as to province of the Taxing Master, post, pp. 342, 346, 
 347. 
 
 Matters unconnected with biUs of costs cannot be re- 
 ferred to the Taxing Master {King v. Savery, 8 De G. M. 
 Sf G. 311, and see ante, pp. 317, 318). It is in the dis- 
 cretion of the Taxing Master to determine who are the 
 proper parties to attend the taxation, and where he had 
 excluded a party on the ground of want of a separate 
 interest, the Court would not disturb the decision 
 {Stahlschmidt v. Lett, 9 W. R. 830). 
 
 All references for the taxation of costs are to be made 
 to the Taxing Master in rotation ; or if there shall have 
 been any former taxation of costs in the same cause or 
 matter, then to the Taxing Master before whom such 
 former taxation shall have taken place (40^A Cons. Ord. 
 r. 2). 
 
 The Taxing Masters are to be respectively assistant to 
 each other ; and in the discharge of their duties, and for the 
 
PEOCEEDINGS ON TAXATION GENERALLY. 339 
 
 better dispatch of the business of their respective offices, 
 any Taxing Master may tax or assist in the taxation of a 
 bill of costs which has been referred to any other Taxing 
 Master for taxation, and for ascertaining what is due in 
 respect of such costs, and in such case shall certify 
 accordingly (iOth Cons. Ord. r. 3). 
 
 ' If the biU of costs contains any charges for business Reference 
 done in a Court of Law, the Chancery Taxing Master j^^^ LaV 
 may send a request to the Taxing- Officer at Law to tax Taxing 
 
 11 ^ ■ ^ ^ tit 11 Of&cer. 
 
 such charges, which he accordmgiy does ; and such taxa- 
 tion is adopted and reported upon by the Chancery Tax- 
 ing Master' (^SmitJi's Chancert/ Practice, 7th ed., 1 vol. 
 155). 
 
 ' AYhere an account consists in part of any bill of costs. Judge may 
 or where the Judge is authorised to fix the amount of sistance of 
 costs under the 24th rule of 40th ConsoKdated Order,* Taxing 
 
 im-Tij- -i- Master ni 
 
 the Judge may direct the iaxmg Master to assist him certain 
 in settling such costs, not being the ordinary costs of '^^^®^- 
 passing the account of a receiver ; and the Taxing Master, 
 on receiving such direction, shall proceed to tax such costs, 
 and shall have the same powers, and the same fees shall 
 be payable in respect thereof, as if the same had been 
 referred to the Taxing Master by an order, and he shall 
 return the same, with his opinion thereon, to the Judge 
 by whose direction the same were taxed ' (4:0th Cons. Ord. 
 r. 25). 
 
 ' Where it is directed that costs shall be taxed in case Bill of 
 the parties differ about the same, the party claiming the ^^^^^^^ '^ 
 costs shall bring the' bill of costs into the Taxing Master's into 
 office, and give notice of his having so done to the other Master's 
 party ; and at any time within eight days after such °^?^' ^^^ 
 notice, such other party shall have liberty to inspect the be given to 
 same without fee, if he thinks fit. And at or before the °^^'"' ^'^^■ 
 expiration of the eight days, or such further time as the 
 Taxing Master shall in his discretion allow, such other 
 
 * Rule enabling the Judge to fix the sum to be allowed to a creditor 
 establishing his debt in Judges' Chambers. 
 
 Z 2 
 
340 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 party shall eitlier agree to pay the costs or signify Ms 
 dissent therefrom, and shall thereupon be at liberty to 
 tender a sum of money for the costs. But where he 
 makes no such tender, or where the party claiming the 
 costs refuses to accept the sum so tendered, the Taxing 
 Master shall proceed to tax the costs. And where the 
 taxed costs shall not exceed the sum tendered, the costs 
 of the taxation shall be borne by the party claiming the 
 costs' {AOth Cons. Ord. r. 39). See before the rule ^wZirey 
 V. Hoper, 5 Buss. 1 ; and costs of taxation generally, post, 
 sect. viii. 
 General ' The practical course of proceeding for the taxation of 
 
 course of ^j^^ ^|i| jg ^g follows :— 
 proceed- 
 ing. ' The solicitor first prepares his bill, and a copy of the 
 
 order under which the taxation is to take place. If there 
 has been a former order for taxation in the cause or 
 matter, then the subsequent taxation will take place be- 
 fore the same Taxing Master without a new reference. 
 If there has been no former order, upon going to the 
 office the name of the sitting Master will be ascertained ; 
 upon the solicitor certifying that the cause or matter has 
 not been already referred for taxation, the clerk of the 
 sitting Master will indorse the name of the Taxing 
 Master in rotation upon the original order of taxation. 
 A warrant or summons must then be taken out to be 
 served on the parties to attend at the taxation, fixing the 
 time for attendance ' {DanieU's Ch. Pr. by Headlam, 3rd ed., 
 p. 1083). 
 Copies. The parties served may obtain copies of the bill. 
 
 Copies are to be made side for side so as to correspond with 
 the bills of costs left in the office (36fA Cons.Ord. r. 7). 
 See further as to copies, Morgan's Ch. Acts, 544-7. The 
 folios of all copies are to be numbered consecutively in 
 the margin thereof, and the name and address of the party 
 or solicitor by whom the same is made is to be endorsed 
 thereon, in like manner, as upon the proceedings in court, 
 and such party or solicit'or is to be answerable for the 
 
PROCEEDINGS ON TAXATION GENEKALLY. 341 
 
 same being true copies of the original of which it purports 
 to be a copy {Cons. Ord. 36, r. 8). 
 
 The 6th & 7th Vict. c. 73, s. 37, provides that, ' upon Non-at- 
 every reference, if either the attorney, or solicitor, or ^f either 
 executor, administrator, or assignee of the attorney or P^^y m 
 
 Master 3 
 
 solicitor, whose bill shall have been delivered, sent, or ofiaoe. 
 left, or the party chargeable with such bill, having due 
 notice shall refuse or neglect to attend such taxation, the 
 officer to whom such reference shall be made may proceed 
 to tax and settle such biU and demand ex parte.'' The 
 party neglecting to attend will not, however, necessarily 
 be Kable to the costs of the attendance {Re Woollett, 12 M. 
 &; W. 506). 
 
 As to service on solicitors generally, see 4th rule of Service of 
 3rd ConsoKdated Order, and Morgan^s Chan. Acts, ^c. Pj™ 
 pp. 15 and 359. In one case, the Court, under peculiar 
 circumstances, allowed service of the Master's certificate to 
 be effected on the solicitor by placing it under the door of 
 his chambers {Re Templeman, 20 Beav. 574). 
 
 The Taxing Masters are all in the habit of setting No altera- 
 
 . ^ , r. , ■ n • tioninBill 
 
 apart a portion oi every week tor the taxation ot costs m permitted 
 matters where service is not required or is dispensed with ^^^^ ^'^^'''^' 
 
 ■^ _ ^ ^ ence, 
 
 by consent ; some of the Masters fixing a particular day except in 
 in each week, and others a portion of each day for the ^^ses!^ 
 purpose {Re Harvey^s Settlement, 10 Hare, app. 75). 
 
 After the bill has once been referred for taxation, no 
 alteration can be made therein (see Davis v. Earl of 
 Dysart, 21 Beav. 124, on appeal 8 De G. M. §• G. 33), 
 except on a special application for leave to amend {Re 
 Andrews, 17 Beav. 510, 514). Thus where by mistake 
 some items were omitted from, and others undercharged 
 and overcharged in a bill of costs referred for taxation, 
 liberty was given, on a petition by the executor of the 
 solicitor, to insert the omitted items and increase those 
 undercharged, but he was not allowed to decrease the 
 overcharges ; and the costs of the application were ordered 
 to be paid by the petitioner {Re Whalley, 20 Beav. 576. 
 
342 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 See, too. Re Walters, 9 Bea-b. 289). In general, however, 
 leave to withdraw a non-taxable item wUl not be given 
 {Re Blakesley, 32 Beau. 379. See, too. Re Tilleard, 32 
 Beav. 476). 
 
 A solicitor, who has included in his bill a lump or gross 
 sum may, on taxation, supply a detailed statement show- 
 ing how the sum is made up, and the Master may allow 
 such of the items contained in the detailed statement as 
 are proper, not exceeding in the aggregate the gross sum 
 originally charged ; but the Master can in no case allow 
 more than the original amount {Re Tilleard, 32 Beav. 
 476 ; see s. c. in 9 Jur. n. s. 1217 ; 32 L. J. ch. 765 ; 11 
 W. R. 476\ 
 Wiatpay- Those pavments only which are made in pursuance of 
 
 ments to , n • i t i i i i t • , 
 
 be allowed the professional duty undertaken by the solicitor, and 
 as profes- -j^jjicJi }^q ig bound to perform or which are sanctioned as 
 
 sional cus- _ '^ 
 
 burse- professional payments by the general and established 
 ^^^^ ^' custom and practice of the profession, ought to be entered 
 and allowed as professional disbursements in the bill of 
 costs {Re Remnant, 11 Beav. 603). Other disbursements 
 ought to be included in a separate cash account {ibid.). 
 See, too, ante, pp. 317, 338, and post, section viii. as to 
 costs of taxation. 
 
 ' When the taxation of the bill of costs has been com- 
 pleted, the Taxing Master proceeds to take an account of 
 the sums received by the solicitor from the client or other- 
 wise, on account of his biU of costs. If the solicitor does 
 not bring in his account, however small the sum received 
 may be, there appears no mode of procuring the account, 
 except by examining the solicitor ' ( Smithes Chancery 
 Pr. 156, 7th ed.). See further as to cash accounts, ante, 
 p. 317. 
 
 We have already seen what items can be taken into 
 
 consideration by the Taxing Master under the common 
 
 order to tax, ante, pp. 317, 318. As to charging the 
 
 solicitor with interest or profits, see ante, p. 317. 
 
 of doo1-°" The twenty-sixth rule of the 40th ConsoHdated Order 
 
PROCEEDINGS ON TAXATION GENERALLY. 343 
 
 provides that, where, upon the taxation of any bill of mentsfor 
 costs, it appears to the Taxing Master that, for the pur- Purposes of 
 
 , . ° ' l^ taxation. 
 
 pose 01 duly taxing the same, it is necessary to inspect 
 any books, papers, or documents relating to the cause or 
 matter in the Chambers of any Judge, the Taxing 
 Master shall be at liberty to request the chief clerk of 
 such Judge to cause the same to be transmitted to the 
 office of the Taxing Master; and also to request such 
 chief clerk to certify any proceedings in the said Chambers 
 which may be comprised in the bill of costs under taxa- 
 tion ; and in such cases the chief clerk, when and so soon Transmis- 
 and at and for such times as the due transaction of the g„°^ doau- 
 business at the said Chambers will permit, shall direct mentsto 
 such books, papers, and documents to be transmitted to Master's 
 the office of the Taxing Master for his use during the °^'^^- 
 taxation, and shall certify the proceedings which have 
 taken place in the said Chambers according to the request 
 of the Taxing Master ; and after the costs in respect of 
 which such request of the Taxing Master was made shall 
 have been certified, the Taxing Master shall cause the 
 same books, papers, and documents which have been so 
 transmitted to his office, if then remaining there, to be 
 returned to the Chambers of the Judge. 
 
 The twenty-seventh rule of the same order (the 14th 
 order of 26th Oct. 1842) provides that, when any book, 
 paper, or document shall be transmitted from the 
 Chambers of a Judge to the office of a Taxing Master, 
 a memorandum of such transmission shall be made and 
 signed by the Taxing Master or the clerk of the Taxing 
 Master at whose request such book, paper, or document 
 may be transmitted, and shall be delivered to the chief 
 clerk of such Judge ; and when any such book, paper, or 
 document shall be returned from the office of the Taxing 
 Master to the Judges' Chambers, a memorandum of such 
 return shall be made and signed by such chief clerk, or by 
 one of his clerks, and shall be delivered to the Taxing 
 Master. 
 
344 Ueliveey and taxation of bills of costs. 
 
 Where it . 
 turns out 
 that person 
 employed 
 is nota 
 solicitor of 
 fh&Court. 
 
 Taxation 
 to the time 
 of making 
 report. 
 
 Order is 
 joint and 
 several. 
 
 Costs of 
 seTeral de- 
 fendants. 
 
 Different 
 scales of 
 costs. 
 
 Total 
 amount as 
 taxed to be 
 stated. 
 
 Where it turned out that the person employed by the 
 client as a solicitor was not a solicitor of the Court, all 
 his costs were disallowed, except disbursements actually 
 made to the clerk in Court {Prehhle v. Boghurst, 1 R. 
 §■ M. 744 ; Coates v. Hawhyard, ibid. 746. 
 
 'An order directing the costs of a suit to be taxed, 
 warrants the taxation up to the time of the Master's 
 making his report, and this it has been held to do, not- 
 withstanding a reservation of subsequent costs " not pro- 
 vided for by the decree," there being other costs by which 
 these words might be satisfied ( Quarrell v. Bechford, 1 
 Mad. 285, 286). Where subsequent costs are not in- 
 tended to be given, the direction should be confined to 
 costs up to the decree, and the question as to subsequent 
 costs should be reserved' (2 DanielVs Ch. Pr. by 
 Headlam, 1084, 3rd ed.). 
 
 Where an order directs the taxation or payment of 
 costs by two or more parties, each party is jointly and 
 severally liable [Boole v. Francis, 1 Mol. 78 ; Meredyth 
 V. Hughes, 3 Y. ^ J. 188) ; and if one of them dies, the 
 costs may nevertheless be taxed and recovered against the 
 survivors [Meredyth v. Hughes, ante). See post, ch. viii. 
 
 But where several defendants retain the same solicitor, 
 each of them can only be charged with his proportion of 
 the general costs of proceedings taken on behalf of all 
 [Re Colquhoun, ex parte Ford, 5 De G. M. §• G. 35, 
 affirming s. c, 1 Sm. ^ G. app. 1). 
 
 As to higher and lower scales of costs, see App. No. 
 1, post, and notes thereto. 
 
 Where any costs are by any decree or order directed 
 to be taxed, and to be paid out of any money iu court, 
 the Taxing Master in his certificate of taxation shall 
 state the total amount of all such costs as taxed, without 
 any direction for that purpose in such decree or order 
 (40th rule of 40th Consolidated Order). The Master 
 is at liberty to certify specially any circumstances relating 
 to the bill or taxation (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 37). 
 
PROCEEDINGS ON TAXATION GENERALLY. 345 
 
 Where the solicitor {Re JVaugh, 29 Beav. 666) or the ReviTor 
 client {Re Nicholson, 29 Beav. 665) dies pending the death^ ° 
 taxation, the proceedings may be revived on an ex parte P™'ii."g 
 application. 'AYhere both the client and solicitor died the 
 taxation was ordered to be continued between the repre- 
 sentatives {Re Whalley, 20 Beav. 576). As to taxation 
 pending an abatement and revivor for the purposes of 
 taxation, see post, ch. viii. 
 
 'The certificate is filed at the report office, but does Filing of 
 not require confirmation' {Smith's Ch. Pr. 157). An <=^'^''*<=''*^- 
 action commenced by the solicitor on his bill after taxa- 
 tion was restrained, although the certificate had not been 
 filed {Re Campbell, 3 De G. 31. §• G. 585). 
 
 Any party who may be dissatisfied with the allowance Objections 
 or disallowance by the Taxing Master, in any bill of ance or 
 costs taxed by him, of the whole or any part of any item <iisallow- 
 or items, may, at any time before the certificate is signed. Taxing 
 deliver to the other party interested therein, and carry in ^^ "'''' 
 before the Taxing ]Master, an objection in writing to such 
 allowance or disallowance, specifying therein, by a list in 
 a short and concise form, the items or item or parts or 
 part thereof objected to, and may thereupon apply to the 
 Taxing Master for a warrant to review the taxation in 
 respect of the same {AOth Cons. Ord. r. 35). 
 
 In a recent case the Taxing Master disallowed a Wiat 
 general objection to a bill of costs as not properly angler to 
 chargeable under a trust deed on the ground that the objection. 
 words of the trust deed covered all expenses incurred by 
 the trustee in the matters of the trust, and that the 
 majority of the items of costs were incurred with the 
 plaintiff's consent, and that some of them were admitted 
 by the plaintiff's bUI. The Master also disallowed an 
 objection to particular items as having been unnecessarily 
 and improperly incurred on the ground that such costs 
 had been proved before him to have been properly in- 
 curred. It was held that both answers were sufficient 
 {Maw V. Pearson, 3 N. R. 99). On an objection to a Evidence. 
 
346 DEHVERT AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Applica- 
 tion for 
 order to 
 review 
 taxation. 
 
 Evidence 
 thereon. 
 
 What 
 questions 
 
 solicitor's charge for journeys his affidavit that they ' were 
 necessarily and properly taken for the benefit of the 
 trusts estate ' was, in the absence of eyidence to the 
 contrary, held to be sufficient (ibid.). 
 
 Upon the application for such warrant, or upon the re- 
 turn thereof, the Taxing Master shall re-consider and 
 review his taxation upon such objection, and he may, if 
 he shall think fit, receive further evidence in respect 
 thereof; and if so required by either party, he shall state, 
 either in his certificate of taxation or by reference to such 
 objection, the grounds and reasons of his decision thereon, 
 and any special facts or circumstances relating thereto 
 (40th Cons. Ord, r. 34). 
 
 The 35th and 36th rules of the same order provided that 
 any party who might be dissatisfied with the certificate 
 of the Taxing Master might apply to the Court by 
 motion or petition for an order to re^dew the taxation. 
 The order of August 2, 1864, after abrogating these 
 rules, provides (Rule 3) that any party who may be dis- 
 satisfied with the certificate of the Taxing Master, as to 
 any item, or part of an item, which may have been objec- 
 ted to, as in the 33rd Rule of 40th Consolidated Order 
 mentioned, may apply to the Judge by whom the order for 
 taxation shall have been made, for an order to review the 
 taxation, as to the same item, or part of an item ; and such 
 application shall be made by a summons at Chambers, and 
 such Judge may thereupon make such order as to the Judge 
 shall seem just. But the certificate of the Taxing Master 
 shall be final and conclusive as to all matters which shall 
 not have been objected to in manner aforesaid. Such ap- 
 plication is to be heard and determined upon the evidence 
 which shall have been brought in before the Taxing 
 Master ; and no further evidence is to be received upon 
 the hearing thereof unless the Judge shall otherwise 
 direct. 
 
 The Court, on an application to review, would only 
 determine questions which involved some principle, and 
 
PROCEEDINGS ON TAXATION GENERALLY. 347 
 
 not those relating to quantum only (jRe Catlin, 18 Beav. enter- 
 508 ; Friend v. Solly, 10 Beav. 529 ; Re Congreve, 4 Beav. appnca-" 
 87 ; Turner v. Turner, 7 W. R. 573 ; Re Huhhard, 23 tio° to 
 Beav. 481 ; Attorney General v. Lord Carrington, 6 taxation. 
 ^eav. 454; ^Zsop v. iorrf Oxford, 1 il/. §• /if. 564). 
 Where, however, there had been some irregularity in the 
 proceedings before the Taxing Master {Fenton v. Crickett, 
 3 Mad. 496), or where costs had been wrongly omitted 
 from taxation (^Greenioood v. Churchill, 14 Beav. 160), or 
 where the Master refused to allow any costs in respect of 
 a particular proceeding {Heming v. LeifcMld, 8 W. R. 
 352, affirmed on appeal 9 W. R. 174), the taxation was 
 ordered to be reviewed. 
 
 Where, in taxing costs at law, the Common Law Where re- 
 Master refers equity matters to a Chancery Taxing f^^^ Qg^_ 
 Master, an application to review such taxation will not '^^"^ ^'-^^ 
 be entertained (i?e Lett, ex parte Parry, 10 W. R. 6). 
 
 It is not the province of the Taxing Master to deal What 
 with any but ordinary costs : any other question which ^^iJi^^ 
 arises must be dealt with by the Court, now the Judge province 
 in Chambers ( Turner v. Turner, 7 W. R. 573 ; King v. Master. 
 Savery, 8 De G. M. §• G^. 311). Thus the Master has 
 no jurisdiction to enter into the propriety of a compromise 
 entered into between the solicitor and the client which 
 the cKent has not sought to impeach (J?e Catlin, 18 Beav. 
 511), and his doing so will be a ground for reviewing the 
 taxation (ibid.). 
 
 It was said that the petition should state the items 
 alleged to have been erroneously allowed or disallowed 
 {Re Congreve, 4 Beav. 87). See now p. 346. 
 
 Where the petitioner had not taken proper steps to Costs of 
 satisfy the Master when the matter was in his office, he 1^^^^^°^ 
 was, though successful on his application to review, 
 ordered to pay the costs of the petition {Sturge v. 
 Dimsdale, 9 Beav. 170). Where the taxation was up- 
 held in some respects, and ordered to be reviewed in 
 others, no costs were given {Re Catlin, 18 Beav. 508). 
 
348 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Court may 
 direct 
 Master to 
 ascertain 
 costs of 
 unneces- 
 sary 
 matter. 
 
 Effect of 
 direction. 
 
 Form of 
 direction. 
 
 Instances 
 of im- 
 proper 
 length. 
 
 Section VII. — Proceedings on Taxation with 
 reference to Particular Matters. 
 
 Where, upon the hearing of any cause, petition, or 
 motion, the Court is of opinion that any pleading, petition, 
 or affidavit, or any part thereof, is improper or of un- 
 necessary length, there, unless the same has been referred 
 for impertinence under the practice existing before the 
 passing of the Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, the Court may 
 either declare such pleading, petition, or affidavit, or any 
 part thereof, to be improper or of unnecessary length, or 
 may direct the Taxing Master to look into such pleading, 
 petition, or affidavit, and distinguish what part thereof is 
 improper or of unnecessary length, and may direct the 
 Taxing Master to ascertain the costs occasioned to any 
 party by such part thereof as in the one case may have 
 been declared to be, and in the other case may have been 
 distinguished as being, improper or of unnecessary 
 length, and may make such order as is just for the pay- 
 ment, set-off, or other allowance of such costs {^Oth Cons. 
 Ord. r. 9). 
 
 It seems that the direction operates as an intimation 
 that the Court considers the affidavit or pleading referred 
 to be of improper length (i?e SMdmore, 24 L. J. ch. 711 ; 
 but see contra, Moore v. Smith, 14 Beav. 396). The usual 
 direction to the Taxing Master is to look into the plead- 
 ings, &c., and in case he shall find any part of the plead- 
 ings, &c. to have been improperly introduced, to tax the 
 costs occasioned thereby, and such costs are ordered to be 
 deducted from the costs payable by the other side 
 {Burchell v. Giles, 11 Beav. 34 ; and see Woods v. Woods, 
 5 Hare, 229; Be Bedminster Charities, 12 Jvr. 665; 
 Seton on Decrees, 3rd ed., pp. 91, 92). 
 
 The setting-out of the material sections of a public 
 statute (as, for instance, the Lands Clauses Consolidation 
 Act) constitutes improper prolixity {Re Manchester 
 §• Leeds Railway Company, 8 Hare, 31 ; but see contra. Re 
 
PEOCEEDINGS ON TAXATION IN PAETICULAE CASES. 349 
 
 Lillei/'s Trustees, 17 Sim. 110). AYhere a petition con- 
 tained personal and irrelevant charges against the re- 
 spondent being the husband of the petitioner, the next 
 friend was ordered to pay so much of the costs on both 
 sides as were properly occasioned by the introduction 
 of such charges into the petition (Re Wills' Trusts, 3 N. 
 R. 107, 12 jr. R. 97). 
 
 Where, in an interpleader suit, the plaintiff filed an 
 affidavit of some leng-th as to the merits, the Taxino- 
 Master was directed to have regard to any prolixity in 
 the plaintiffs' affida^'its ( Scottish Union Insurance Comipany 
 V. Steele, d L. T. n. s. 677). See further as to unnecessary 
 length in pleadings, &c.. Tench v. Cheese, 1 Beav. 571 ; 
 Byde v. Masterman, Cr. §• Ph. 265 ; Attorney General v. 
 Foster, 2 Hare, 81 ; Davis v. Cripps, 2 Y. 8f C. C. C. 
 435 ; Noricay v. Rowe, 1 Mer. 347 ; Hanslip v. Kitton, 
 8 Jur. n. s. 808, 1113 ; and ante, p. 205. AppHca- 
 
 The application to be made under the Stat. 15 & 16 *'"" for 
 
 -IT- r,r. 1 ». <• 1 ^ • ■ COStSOfim- 
 
 Vic. c. 86, s. 17 lor the costs ot any impertment matter pertinent 
 introduced into any biU, answer, or other proceeding, ™^tt«^r '» 
 shall be made at the time when the Court disposes of the when costs 
 costs of the cause or matter, and not at any other time ^^ .^^^ ' 
 {■iOth Cons. Ord. r. 11). disposed 
 
 The 18th rule of the 40th Consolidated Order provides ^^^^^ . 
 that no costs shall be allowed, either as between party and -written 
 party, or as between soKcitor and cKent, for any written 
 bill or written copy of a bill filed under the Stat. 1 5 & 1 6 
 Vict, c* 86, s. 6, or for any written copy thereof served 
 upon any defendant thereto, or for any written brief of 
 such bill, unless the Court, in disposing of the costs of 
 the cause, shall direct the allowance thereof. Notwith- 
 standing this rule, it is usual to allow the costs of a written 
 bill bona fide incurred (Elt v. Burial Board of Islington, 
 2 W. R. 584. See Moss v. Syers, 2 N. R. 572). No Of written 
 costs are to be allowed, either as between party and party ' ^^'^^' 
 or as between solicitor and client, for any written brief of 
 an answer, unless the Court shall direct such allowance 
 
350 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OP BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 (I3th rule of Order of March 6th, 1860). See further, 
 app. i. and iii. 
 Costs of The Taxing Master may, on taxation between party 
 
 eyldence ^^^ party, allow to the party entitled to receive costs ' all 
 &<=. such just and reasonable expenses as appear to have been 
 
 properly incurred in the service and execution of writs, 
 and the service of orders, notices, petitions, warrants, and 
 summonses ' {4:0th Cons. Ord. r. 32). The costs of issuing 
 process of contempt, however, will not be allowed (At- 
 torney General v. Lord Carrington, 6 Beav. 460), unless 
 specially applied for {ibid.). The costs of 'procuring 
 evidence by deposition or affidavit, and the attendance of 
 witnesses ' will be allowed on taxation as between party 
 Costs un- and party (z'Jttf.). But in allowing such costs, the Taxing 
 incurred ^ Master shall not allow to such party any costs which do 
 not appear to have been necessary or proper for the 
 attainment of justice or for defending his rights, or which 
 appear to have been incurred through over-caution, 
 negligence, or mistake, or merely at the desire of the 
 party (ibid.). As to the costs of unnecessary evidence, see 
 Booth V. Booth, 1 Beav. 130; Farrow v. Bees, 4: Beav. 
 24. If the Court can clearly distinguish the evidence, 
 &c., which has been unnecessarily entered into, it will 
 dispose of the costs thereof at once. See Farrow v. 
 Bees, ante ; and as to costs of unnecessary matter 
 generally, ante, p. 348. 
 Costs of The costs of affidavits filed, but not entered in the 
 
 a a-n s. qj.^^^^ -^{h j^q^ jjg allowed even on a taxation as between 
 solicitor and client {Stephens v. Lord Newborough, 11 
 Beav. 403 ; and see Stuart v. Greenall, 13 Price, 755). 
 "Witnesses Where notice was given to cross-examine witnesses at 
 for CT^s-^ *^® hearing, and they were brought up accordingly, but 
 examina- were not, in fact, cross-examined, it was held that the 
 he^rhig. costs of bringing them up ought to be allowed in taxation 
 as between party and party {Clark v. Malpas, 31 Beav. 
 554, 1 N. E. 221). Where interrogatories, though pre- 
 pared, were not filed in order to save expense, the costs 
 
PROCEEDINGS ON TAXATION IN PARTICULAR CASES. 351 
 
 of preparing them were allowed on taxation as between 
 party and party {Davies v. Marshall (No. 2), 1 Dreio. 
 ^' Sm. 564). But where a demurrer was allowed the 
 costs of piirsuing interrogatories served before the de- 
 murrer was filed were disallowed (Ernest v. Partridge, 2 
 N. E. 232). 
 
 The 15th & 16th Vict. c. 80, s. 43, provides that the 
 fees to conveyancing counsel, accountants, merchants, 
 engineers, actuaries, and other scientific persons, employed 
 to assist the Court under sections 40, 41, and 42 of the same 
 Act, are to be regulated by the Taxing Master, subject 
 to the Judge to whom the cause is attached, whose de- 
 cision is to be final. 
 
 Fees to counsel (Attorney General v. Lord Carrington, Fees to 
 6 Beav. 454), including the conveyancing counsel of the '^°^^^^ ■ 
 Court of Chancery (Rumsay v. Rumsay, 21 Beav. 40, 
 and see ante~), are, as a general rule, left to the discretion 
 of the Taxing Master. 
 
 The rule as to allowing more than one counsel is provi- Costs of 
 ded for by the 20th rule of the 40th ConsoHdated Order, * J ''°''"- 
 which directs that where two counsel appear for the same 
 party upon the hearing of any cause or matter, and it 
 appears to the Taxing j\Iaster to have been necessary or 
 proper for such party to retain two counsel to appear, the 
 costs occasioned thereby shall be allowed, although both 
 of such counsel may have been selected from the outer bar. 
 The costs of two counsel appearing on an unopposed motion 
 (Stephens v. Lord Newborough, 11 Beav. 403), and on an 
 unopposed petition (Sturge v. Dimsdale, 9 Beav. 170), 
 have been allowed on taxation as between solicitor and 
 client (see, too, observations in Coolie v. Turner, 12 Sim. 
 649). But, of course, there were special circumstances in 
 these cases. As a general rule in the case of unopposed 
 applications, only the costs of one counsel will be allowed 
 (see Friend v. Solly, 10 Beav. 329). So in the case of 
 a motion involving some short or simple point of practice 
 (see Yearsley v. Yearsley, 19 Beav. 1). 
 
352 DELIVEET AND TAXATION OP BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 On taxation, as between party and party, the costs of 
 two junior counsel employed to settle a defendant's answer 
 were disallowed {Davies v. Earl of Dysart,2\ Beav. 124, 
 25 L. J. ch. 122, on appeal, 8 De G. M. §• G. 33 ; 25 L. 
 J. ch. 322). But in a recent case it was held that under 
 an order for taxation of costs as between solicitor and 
 client, the costs of a consultation between the junior 
 counsel and a Queen's counsel as to the frame of a bill in 
 equity were properly allowed, without reference to the 
 result of the suit, or the fact whether or not the advice of 
 the Queen's counsel was acted upon (Forster v. Davies, 9 
 Jur. N. S. 741 ; 11 W. R. 813; 2 N. R. 350; see, too, 
 Lucas V. Peacock, 8 Beav. 1). 
 Costs of It does not follow from the 20th rule of the 40th Consoli- 
 
 two couu- dated Order that the costs of a third counsel will never be 
 ^®'- allowed. On the contrary, such costs may properly be 
 
 allowed where there is a great deal of evidence, or the pro- 
 ceedings are voluminous, or the question to be decided is 
 a nice and difficult one. Per V. C. of England, in Wastell 
 V. Leslie, 12 Sim. 84, 87, where the taxation was as be- 
 tween solicitor and client; see, too, Nichols y. Haslam, 15 
 Sim. 49, and Sharp v. Ashley, 12 M. §• W. 732. As a 
 general rule, however, on a taxation as between party and 
 party, very special circumstances are necessary to justify 
 the allowance of a third counsel {Att. Gen. v. Munro, 1 M. 
 §• a 213 ; Smith v. Earl of Effingham, 10 Beav. 378). And 
 even in the case of a taxation as between solicitor and 
 client, the general rule is that the costs of only two 
 counsel will be allowed {Friend v. Solly, 10 Beav. 329 ; 
 Downing College Case, 3 M. Sf Cr. 474). 
 
 In Carter v. Barnard, 16 Sim. 157, where the counsel 
 who had drawn the pleadings had been called within the 
 bar before the hearing, the costs of a third counsel were 
 allowed. But this rule was not followed in Green v. 
 Briggs, 7 Hare 279 ; see, too, Lucas v. Peacock, 8 Beav. 1. 
 The costs of a third counsel were allowed on a very 
 heavy appeal {Pearce v. Lindsay, Johns. 705 n. 1 De G. 
 
PROCEEDINGS ON TAXATION IN PARTICULAR CASES. 353 
 
 F. &; J. 573, reversing s. c. before V. C. "Wood, Johns. 
 702). 
 
 The costs of a tliird counsel belonging to the common 
 law bar were allowed in Betts v. Clifford, 1 J. &,• H. 74, 
 and disallowed in Flockton v. Peake, 4: K R. 456, 12 IF. 
 R. 1203. 
 
 The costs of a brief to the Attorney General on the 
 hearing of an information will be allowed in addition to 
 the costs of two other counsel {Att. G. v. Drapers' Com- 
 pany, 4 Beav. 305). 
 
 The common retaining fee to counsel ^\dll not be allowed Eetaining 
 on a taxation as between party and party (^Green v. 
 Briggs, 7 Hare, 279), nor a special retaining fee (Smith 
 V. Farl of Effingham, 10 Beav. 378); but see contra, 
 Nichols V. Haslam, 15 Sim. 49, where a special retaining 
 fee to the Attorney General, who did not usually practise 
 in the Court of Chancery, was allowed, although there 
 were no special circumstances in the case which rendered 
 the employment of the Attorney General necessary. 
 Counsel's fees on brief to fix a day for the hearing, were 
 allowed on a taxation as bet^reen party and party ( Clark 
 V. Malpas, 31 Beav. 554; 1 N. R. 221; 11 W. R. 
 251). 
 
 The 32nd rule of the 40th Consolidated Order provides Cons. Ord. 
 that where costs are to be taxed as between party and ^O''^-^^- 
 party, the Taxing Master may allow to the party entitled 
 to receive such just and reasonable costs, all such expenses 
 as appear to have been properly incurred in (inter alia) — 
 
 Ad-sasiag with counsel on the pleadings, evidence, and 
 other proceedings in the cause ; 
 
 Procuring counsel to settle and sign pleadings and such 
 petitions as may appear to. be proper to have settled by 
 counsel ; and 
 
 Procuring consultations of counsel ; 
 
 Procuring the attendance of counsel in Judges' cham- 
 bers, or in the Masters' offices, where the Judge or Master 
 has certified the case to be proper for counsel to attend ; 
 
 A A 
 
354 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OP COSTS. 
 
 Fees on 
 consulta- 
 tions, &c. 
 
 Costs of 
 observa- 
 tions, 
 briefs of 
 
 &c. 
 
 Supplying counsel with copies of, or extracts from, ne- 
 cessary documents. 
 
 In the absence of sufficient reason only one consultation 
 fee ought to be allowed on taxation as between party and 
 ^axij {Smith Y. Earl of Effingham, 10 Beav. 378). In 
 Lucas V. Peacock, 8 Beav. 1, the costs of a consultation 
 between a new and a former junior who had been pro- 
 moted were allowed on a taxation as between solicitor and 
 client; but see Davis v. Earl of Dysart, 21 Beav. 124 ; 
 25 L. J. ch. 122 ; 8 Be G. M. Sf G. 33 ; 25 L. J. ch. 
 322, where the taxation was between party and party. 
 Where no fee is paid to counsel on a consultation, no 
 charge can be allowed to the solicitor for his attendance 
 {Re Catlin, 18 Beav. 516). 
 
 Where a demurrer was allowed with costs, the costs of 
 the solicitor's conferences with counsel to advise as to de- 
 muring were allowed {Ernest v. Partridge, 2 N. R. 232 ; 
 11 W.R. 715). 
 
 The costs of drawing observations for counsel where 
 the cause stood over, were allowed in Davies v. Marshall 
 {No. 2), 1 Drew. §• 8m. 564. But in another case, Ernest 
 V. Partridge, 2 N. R. 232, 11 W. R. lib, cited above, the 
 costs of preparing such observations, which included 
 marginal notes and an index to the bill which was very 
 long, were disallowed. Both these were cases of taxation 
 as between party and party. 
 
 Briefs of pleadings prepared for counsel after pubHca- 
 tion and before the cause had been set down, and which 
 became useless in consequence of a compromise before 
 hearing, were disallowed on taxation as between solicitor 
 and client (i^rzewtf V. Solly, 10 Beav. 329; see, too. Re 
 Pender, 10 Beav. 390). The costs of an abstract of a 
 deed prepared to accompany a case submitted to counsel 
 {Re Pender, ante), and of a copy of correspondence fur- 
 nished to counsel as instructions for a bill, and partially 
 inserted therein, were disallowed {Stephens v. Lord New- 
 borough, 10 Beav. 403). 
 
PROCEEDINGS ON TAXATION IN PARTICULAR CASES. 355 
 
 ^Vith regard to the settling of affidavits by counsel, the Settling 
 17th rule of the 40th Consolidated Order provides that '^^^^^^^^ 
 expenses incurred in consequence of affidavits being pre- 
 pared or settled by counsel, shall be allowed only when 
 the Taxing Master shall in his discretion, and on consi- 
 deration of the special circumstances of each case, think 
 such expenses properly incurred; and in such case he 
 shall be at liberty to allow the same or such parts thereof ^ 
 as he may consider just and reasonable, whether the taxa- 
 tion be between solicitor and client or between party and 
 party. 
 
 This rule does not take the question of the costs of 
 settling the affidavit out of the discretion of the Court 
 {Davies v. Marshall {No. 2), 1 Dreiv. Sf Sm. 354, where 
 the costs of having an affidavit used on a motion for an 
 injunction, which was a mere echo of the bill, settled by 
 counsel were allowed. See before the rule Be Pender, 10 
 Beav. 390, where, on a taxation as between solicitor and 
 client, a fee to counsel for settling a special affidavit for 
 leave to amend a bill was disallowed. 
 
 By the 29th rule of the 40th Consolidated Order, it is Costs of 
 provided that the costs of counsel attending the Judge In j^dge ^^ 
 Chambers shall not in any case be allowed, unless the Chambers. 
 Judge certifies it to be a proper case for counsel to attend. 
 Where a case is adjourned from Chambers into Court, the 
 Master of the E-olls always certifies for counsel, unless he 
 states the contrary {Greville y. Greville, 27 Beav. 598, 
 followed by V. C. Wood in Graham v. Graham, Johns. 
 624). See ante, p. 95. 
 
 Where, in pursuance of any direction by the Court or Costs of 
 a Judge in Chambers, drafts are settled by any of the ancrng' 
 conveyancing counsel of the Court, the expense of pro- counsel. 
 curing such drafts to be previously or subsequently settled 
 by other counsel on behalf of the same parties on whose 
 behalf such drafts are settled by the conveyancing counsel 
 of the Court, shall not be allowed on taxation as between 
 party and party, or as between solicitor and client, unless 
 
 A A 2 
 
356 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OP BILLS OP COSTS. 
 
 Counsels' 
 clerks' 
 
 Costs of 
 shorthand- 
 writers. 
 
 Inter- 
 preter. 
 
 Account- 
 ants. 
 
 Auction- 
 eers. 
 
 the Court or the Judge in Chambers shall otherwise 
 direct (40 Cons. Ord. r. 30). See before the rule, Re 
 Jones's Settled Estates, 4 Jur. n. s. 887 ; Nicholson v. 
 Jeyes, 1 Sm. §• G. app. xiii. 
 
 Fees to counsels' clerks are mere gratuities, for which 
 they have no legal demand {Re Cotton, 9 Beav. 107). 
 The sum allowed on taxation for such fees does not limit 
 the sum which may be spontaneously given ; but it does 
 limit the sum which the solicitor can safely pay without 
 special directions (ibid.). 
 
 The rule as to allowing the costs of a shorthand- 
 writer's notes of the evidence seems to have varied. In 
 Smith V. JEarl of Effingham, 10 Beav. 378 ; and Flockton 
 V. Peahe, 4 iV. R. 456, 12 W. E. 1023, such costs were 
 disallowed. In Clarke v. Malpas, 31 Beav. 554, 1 N. 
 R.22l,\\ W. R. 251, the costs of a shorthand-writer 
 to take down a cross-examination in court were allowed. 
 See, too, Re London 8f Birmingham §■ Buckinghamshire 
 Railway Company,^ W. R. 141, V.C.K.; Malins v. 
 Price, 1 Ph. 590. The costs of a shorthand-writer's 
 notes of the argument will never, it seems, be allowed 
 (Re London 8f Birmingham 8f Buckinghamshire Railway 
 Company, 6 fV. R. 141). 
 
 The costs of employing an interpreter to prepare the 
 answer of a foreign defendant will be allowed on taxation 
 as between party and party (Earl of Shrewsbury v. 
 Trappes, 10 JV. R. 663); but not the hotel and travelling 
 charges occasioned by bringing him to town (ibid.). 
 
 In the absence of any special agreement with an ac- 
 countant, the Court of Chancery will, on taxation, adopt 
 the scale of charges fixed for accountants and their clerks 
 by the general order in bankruptcy of the 19th May, 
 1855 (Meymott v. Meymott, 4 N. R. 390, 12 W. R. 996). 
 
 As to auctioneers' costs and charges, see Re Page 
 (No. 3), 32 Beav. 487. 
 
 As to fees payable to examiners, &c., see post, 
 App. I. 
 
PEOCEEDIN&S ON TAXATION IN PARTICULAE CASES. 357 
 
 It has been held that an objection to allowance of profit 
 costs to mortgagees acting as their own solicitors in a re- 
 demption suit must be taken at the hearing, and cannot be 
 entered into before the Taxing Master where the decree 
 directs taxation of the mortgagees' costs in the usual form 
 {Price V. McBeth, 12 JV. R. 818); but see ante, p. 282. 
 
 A solicitor who himself furnishes to the other side Copies and 
 copies of documents which he has a right to take under ordocu-™ 
 the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 18, will be allowed stationer's ments. 
 costs only {Kennedy v. George, 6 W. R. 288). Where 
 the inspection of the documents takes place at the 
 solicitor's ofiSce instead of at the Record & Writ Clerks' 
 office, the solicitor at whose office the inspection takes 
 place is not entitled to charge the other side for atten- 
 dances during the inspection {Flockton v. Peake, 4^ N. R. 
 456, 12 W. R. 1023). 
 
 A solicitor is entitled to charge a term fee for every Term fee. 
 term in which a proceeding by either party takes place. 
 And where the only proceeding was the laying before the 
 Taxing Master a copy of the decree and of the bill for 
 taxation, it was held that a term fee was properly charge- 
 able {Davies t. Marshall (No. 2), 1 Drew. §• Sm. 567). 
 
 The costs of a London attorney attending the execution Solicitor 
 of a commission for examination of witnesses in the ^xamina- 
 country were, under special circumstances, allowed on a tion, &e. 
 taxation as between party and party {Howell v. Tyler, 2 
 Y. §• C. C. C. 284). In a recent case the travelling ex- 
 penses of a country solicitor, who came up to attend the 
 cross-examination of witnesses at the hearing, were dis- 
 aRowed {Clark v. Malpas, 31 Beav. 554, 1 N. R. 221). 
 
 The costs of enrolling the decree are not allowed in Enrolling 
 taxation as between party and party ( Clark v. Malpas, ^^'^^'"'■ 
 31 Beav. 554, 1 N. R. 221). 
 
 See further, App. III. 
 
358 DELIVERY AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Section VIII. — Costs of Taxation. 
 
 Provisions By the 37th section of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, it is 
 Viet "^^73 enacted that in case any such reference as aforesaid shall 
 as to costs be made upon the application of the party chargeable 
 tion?^''" ^it^ saeh bill, or upon the application of such attorney 
 or solicitor, or the executor, administrator, or assignee of 
 such attorney or solicitor, and the party chargeable with 
 such bill shall attend upon such taxation, the costs of such 
 reference shall, except as hereinafter provided for, be paid 
 according to the event of such taxation ; that is to say, if 
 such bill when taxed be less by a sixth part than the bill 
 delivered, sent, or left, then such attorney or solicitor, or 
 executor, administrator or assignee of such attorney or 
 solicitor, shall pay such costs ; and if such bill when 
 taxed shall not be less by a sixth part than the bill de- 
 livered, sent, or left, then the party chargeable with such 
 bill, making such application or so attending, shall pay 
 such costs ; and every order to be made for such reference 
 as aforesaid shall direct the officer to whom such reference 
 shall be made to tax such costs of such reference to be so 
 paid as aforesaid, and to certify what, upon such reference, 
 shall be found to be due to or from such attorney or 
 solicitor, or executor, administrator, or assignee of such 
 attorney or solicitor, in respect of such bill and demand, 
 and of the costs of such reference, if payable : Provided 
 also, that such officer shall in all cases be at liberty to 
 certify specially any circumstances relating to such bill or 
 taxation, and the Court or Judge shall be at liberty to 
 make thereupon any such order as such Court or Judge 
 may think right respecting the payment of the costs of 
 such taxation : Provided also, that where such reference 
 as aforesaid shall be made when the same is not authorised 
 to be made except under special circumstances, as herein- 
 before provided, then the said Court or Judge shall be at 
 liberty, if it shall be thought fit, to give any special 
 
COSTS OP TAXATION. 359 
 
 directions relative to the costs of such reference. As to 
 costs of taxation before the Act, see Toghill v. Grant, 6 
 Beav. 348. 
 
 Since the passing of this Act, it has been held that Items dis- 
 items struck out of a solicitor's bill on taxation, as charge- cjjaXeable 
 able against another person, must be taken into account in against 
 determining the costs of the taxation {Re Clark, 13 Beav. person 
 173, 1 De G. 31. S,- G. 43). See the Taxing Master's tobe taken 
 certincate in that case (13 Beav. 181-3). count. 
 
 In determining the amount taken off, only strictly pro- Charges 
 fessional charges and disbursements ought to be taken ""ofps?'' ^ 
 into consideration (i2e Remnant, 11 Beav. 603). Thus, sional. 
 where the client had in a legal proceeding become liable 
 to pay a sum of money which was paid by his solicitor, 
 who, however, had not acted for him in the action, it was 
 held that the money, although properly included in a cash 
 account, was not properly included in the solicitor's bill, 
 for the purpose of determining whether one-sixth had been 
 taxed off {ibid.; followed in Re Haigh, 12 Beav. 307, 
 where the payment had been made for legacy duty). This 
 case seems to overrule Re Bedson, 9 Beav. 5. See ob- 
 servations of Lord Langdale on the latter case, in 12 
 Beav. 308, and ante, p. 342. 
 
 In a recent case it was held that monies paid by a Monies 
 client to his solicitor for specific purposes, ex. gr. for ^i^"^?J 
 counsels' fees and stamps as they were required, were specific 
 properly included in the solicitor's bill, for the purpose of P"'P°^'^- 
 calculating the one-sixth on a taxation {Re Metcalfe, 30 
 Beav. 406). 
 
 In a case in bankruptcy {ex parte Barrett, 3 Dea. 8f Wliere 
 Ch. 731) an order had been made for the taxation of f':i<^^^^ 
 four several biUs of a solicitor for various businesses done 
 for the same assignee, under which more than a sixth part 
 was taken off the gross amount of the four bills, but not 
 off the amount of every one of the bills. It was held 
 that as all the bills were incurred by the same person in 
 the same right, there was no need of a separate order of 
 
360 DELIVEET AND TAXATION OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 taxation for each bill, and that, as more than a sixth was 
 taken off from the whole amount, the solicitor must pay 
 the costs of taxation. 
 
 In a case at law {Beardsall v. Cheetham, 31 L. T. 115, 
 reported on another point, E. B. §• E. 243) four separate 
 bills for four distinct mattei's had been delivered to the 
 client, and the client refusing to pay two actions had 
 been brought thereon. The Master having made two 
 separate allocaturs, the Court made an order to con- 
 solidate the two actions, and for the Master to review his 
 taxation by giving one allocatur only on the four bills. 
 The consequence being that more than one-sixth was de- 
 ducted from the whole, the Court held the client entitled 
 under the statute to the costs of the whole taxation. 
 Principle Where the Master disallows some items and adds others, 
 ^dded"'"'' the bill delivered is to be treated as increased by the sum 
 and dis- added, and then reduced by the sum disallowed (i?e 
 Hartley, 2 Jur. n. s. 448. See, too, Reg. v. Eastwood, 6 
 Ell §• Bl. 285). 
 New items The solicitor will not be allowed to introduce new 
 in™°' ^^ items with a view to affect the costs of taxation {Hays 
 duced. V. Trotter, 5 Bar. 8f Ad. 1106; Be Blakeley, 12 Beav. 
 379 ; Re Tilleard, 32 Beav. 476 ; and ante, pp. 307, 341). 
 Where Where a bill was ordered to be taxed (questions as to 
 
 t'^r^VK^ ^*^**^% being reserved) and less than a sixth was struck 
 reserved, off, it was held that whatever might be the result of the 
 question reserved, the client must pay the costs of taxa- 
 tion {Re Shaiv, 20 L. J. Q. B. 280). 
 Where suit A suit having been instituted by the client against the 
 count. solicitor for a general account, more than one-sixth was 
 
 taken off in the suit, but less than one-sixth on the taxa- 
 tion. The court allowed the solicitor the costs of the 
 Where taxation {May v. Biggenden, 24 Beav. 207). Where 
 brought. taxation was ordered pending an action for the costs, and 
 more than one-sixth was taken off, the court ordered the 
 costs of the reference to be paid by the solicitor, and the 
 costs of the action by the client {Re Hair, 11 Beav. 96). 
 
COSTS OP TAXATION. 361 
 
 See contra, before the Act, Togliill v. Grant, 6 Beav. 
 348. 
 
 Where more than a sixth is taken oflf the bill, the Liability 
 assignees of a bankrupt {Re Peers, 21 Beav. 520), or in- gi^ees 
 solvent solicitor {Shea v. Boschetti, re Peile, 25 Beav. of.soKeitor 
 561), are personally liable for the costs of the taxation of taxation. 
 a bill delivered by them. In Re Cole, 2 Sim. §• St. 463 
 (decided under the old statute), it was held that the per- 
 sonal representative of a deceased solicitor was not liable 
 for the costs of taxation. In this case the bill had been 
 delivered by the solicitor himself. 
 
 Where pending the taxation, the solicitor petitioned Of insol- 
 for and obtained his discharge under the Insolvent t^j. 
 Debtors' Acts, he was held personally liable for the costs 
 of the taxation, more than one-sixth having been taken 
 off{ff'Tianey v. Williamson, 6 Q. B. 269). 
 
362 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 MODES OP ENPOKCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Section I. — Where Costs are ordered to be paid by one 
 Party to another personally. 
 
 Modes of Where costs, either in a cause or matter, are ordered to 
 recovery. \)q p^i^ fey one party to another personally, they may be 
 recovered, (1) by subpoena, attachment, and sequestration ; 
 (2) as a judgment under the provisions of Statute 1 & 2 
 Vict. c. 110, amended by Statute 3 & 4 Vict. c. 82 ; (3) 
 indirectly, in some cases, by staying any further proceed- 
 ings by the party by whom the costs are to be paid ; but 
 (4) there can in general be no revivor for costs. 
 A party The execution of a writ of attachment does not deprive 
 
 maypursue ^^ party issuing it of any lien or right of set-oif he may 
 remedies, have for the costs {Bawtree v. Watson, 2 K. 713; and 
 see Roberts v. Ball, 2 Sm. &f G. 168); and he may both 
 proceed by^. fa., and have a sequestration {Westby y. 
 Westby, 5 De G. 8f S. 516). But if he takes the body of 
 his debtor in execution, he cannot afterwards proceed by 
 Ji. fa. (1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 16). 
 Process Where several persons are ordered to pay costs, process 
 
 ™?'^, against them may be joint or several (^Sangar v. Gardiner, 
 
 several, C. P. C. 262 ; Purcell V. Woodley, 5 Ir. Eq. R. 376 ; and 
 
 see the cases cited, ante, p. 86). 
 Eecovery The pendency of an appeal or rehearing does not sus- 
 not^sus^- pend the recovery of costs ordered to be paid by the 
 pended by decree or order appealed from ( Tyson v. Cox, 3 Mad. 
 agStthe 278 ; Herring v. Clobery, 15 Sim. 410; Colyer v. Colyer, 
 decree IQ W. R. 748 ; and see 31 Cons. Ord. r. 2). But a special 
 
 awarding /. i / r 
 
 them. order for the purpose may be made under the rule re- 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER. 363 
 
 ferred to. To justify such an application, however, even 
 where an offer is made to pay the amount into court, a 
 case must be proved that if the decree were reversed the 
 party to whom the costs are payable is not in circum- 
 stances to refund them (per Lord Lyndhurst, Parrot v. 
 Palmer, cited 1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 694 ; and see Roberts v. 
 Totty, 19 Ves. 446 ; Pinkett v. Wright, 4 Ha. 160, in 
 each of which cases the application was refused). But in 
 Bauer v. Mitford, 9 TV. R. 135, a fund out of which 
 costs were ordered to be paid was retained pending the 
 appeal. 
 
 1. Subpoena, Attachment, and Sequestration. 
 
 After the Taxing Master has certified the amount of Subpoena, 
 the costs directed to be taxed, and his certificate has been J ^ 
 filed, the party to whom the costs are directed to be paid 
 may at once sue out a subpoena for the costs as taxed, 
 which are made payable to such party or the bearer of the 
 subpoena. Before suing out the subpoena, a precipe for 
 that purpose in the usual form, and containing the name 
 or firm and the place of business or residence of the 
 solicitor or solicitors intending to sue out the same, and 
 where such solicitor or solicitor is or are an agent or agents 
 only, then also the name or firm of the principal solicitor 
 or solicitors must in all cases be delivered and filed at the 
 office of the Clerk of Records and Writs. And on a 
 subpoena for costs being sealed, the Taxing Master's cer- 
 tificate is to be produced to the officer seahng the writ as 
 his authority for sealing it (28 Cons. Ord. r. 1). 
 
 Tor the form of subpoena, as fixed by 28 Cons. Ord. Form of 
 r. 2, see post, App. II. form 1. ^^^P'^'^^- 
 
 A very small error in the form of subpoena, as the Subpoena 
 omission of the word ' pounds' {In re Reynolds, 10 W. a^^d'by 
 R. 709), is sufficient to invalidate a subsequent attach- error in 
 ment founded on it {Lord Huntingtower v. Sherborn, 5 
 Beav. 162 ; Barnes v. Tweddell, C. P. C. 440). But in corrected." 
 
364 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Service of 
 subpoena. 
 
 Substi- 
 tuted 
 service 
 may be 
 allowed. 
 
 Semce 
 
 irregular 
 
 where 
 
 the interval between the suing out and service of any 
 subpoena, the party suing out the same may correct any 
 error in the names of parties, and may have the writ re- 
 sealed upon leaving a corrected prascipe of such subpoena, 
 marked with the words ' altered and resealed,' and signed 
 with the name and address of the solicitor or solicitors 
 suing out the same (28 Cons. Ord. r. 5). 
 
 The service of the subpoena must be effected by deli- 
 vering a copy of the writ and of the endorsement thereon, 
 and at the same time producing the original writ (28 Cons. 
 Ord. r. 6). The service need not be effected within twelve 
 weeks after the teste, as in other cases (28 Cons. Ord. r. 9). 
 The party serving the subpoena may receive the money 
 without a power of attorney {Empringham v. Short, 12 
 L. J. ch. 144 ; Andrewes v. Walton, 1 Mac. ^ G. 380, 
 383 ). Demand of the costs is an indispensable part of the 
 service, whether personal or substituted (^Andrewes v. 
 Walton, 1 Mac. ^ G. 380, 383). Qu. whether 29 Cons. 
 * Ord. r. 1 applies to a subpoena for costs. 
 
 If it is shown that due diligence has been used to serve 
 the party personally and he cannot be found, substituted 
 service may be allowed {Danford v. Cameron, 8 Ha. 329 ; 
 
 Hunter v. , 6 Sim. 429 ; Inglis v. Campbell, 2 W. R. 
 
 667). And the order should be for substituted service on 
 the country solicitor or the town agent, whichever name 
 is on the record, or if both names are on the record, on 
 both ( Danford v. Cameron, loc. cit.) So, if the party is 
 residing permanently abroad ( Walrond v. Parker, 1 Giff. 
 315). But service out of the jurisdiction of a subposna 
 for costs is irregular {Fernandez v. Corbin, 2 Sim. 544 ; 
 Hawkins v. Hall, 1 Beav. 73). 
 
 Where a party is in illegal custody at the suit of the 
 other party,* service of a subpoena upon him i& irregular 
 
 * Lord Cottenham is reported to have added that the Court would not 
 allow the party to take advantage of the illegal custody, though he were 
 not himself the author of it (4 My. ^ C. 281). But the correctness of that 
 part of the report was doubted by V.G. Wigram, in Woodward v. Conebeer, 
 1 Ha. 297, where reference is made to Hutchins v. KerrioJc, 1 Burr. 1049. 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER. 365 
 
 {HaioMns v. Hall, 4 Mi/. Sf C. 280). And so, where a party is in 
 party remains in custody after he has become entitled to \^^ *^^" 
 be discharged ( Leiois v. Evans, Cr. §• PA. 264 ; but see 
 Woodioard v. Coneheer, 1 Ha. 297). 
 
 If a party neglects to pay the costs, then upon affidavit On default 
 of the service of the subpoena and non-payment an attach- jj^^^t jg. 
 ment issues, without order, addressed to the sheriff in the ^^^'^'^^ 
 usual way. 
 
 The attachment is not bailable, and if the sheriff lets out Attach- 
 
 a party attached for non-payment of costs on bail, he is re- Mailable. 
 
 sponsible (see the cases cited ante, p. 38, andpos^, p. 375). 
 
 It is open to the party to whom costs are payable to issue Two writs 
 
 two writs of attachment, returnable immediately and run- "^ue^^ 
 
 ning at the same time, but not into the same county 
 
 {Andreices v. Walton, 1 Mac. §• G. 380, 5). He may. Writ may 
 
 before the return of an attachment, if unexecuted, have it ''?^^l*^™<i 
 
 ^ ^ wnere un- 
 
 altered, re-sealed, and re-entered ; or if it has not been executed. 
 
 delivered to the sheriff, he may, if for any cause desirable 
 or necessary, on delivering up the first attachment to the 
 of&cer sealing it (but not otherwise), have a new attach- 
 ment to the same county also returnable immediately, and 
 the former will be destroyed (^Andrewes v. Walton, loc. cit.) 
 
 If the party is taken under the attachment, he is com- Proceed- 
 mitted to the County Gaol, and the sheriff returns accor- "'^^ °° „ 
 dingly ;* and if the party to whom the costs are payable attach- 
 desires a sequestration, he moves for a writ of habeas coi-- 
 pus cum causis \ to bring the defaulting party up to the 
 bar of the Court. When brought up he was, before 
 Stat. 25 & 26 Vict. c. 104, by a further order ordered to 
 be turned over to the Queen's Prison {Set. 1222, 1223 ; 
 1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 226, 227). However, by the last-men- Qu. 
 tioned Act, Whitecross Street Prison is substituted for „ „^^„,^L 
 the Queen's Prison, subject to a proviso that no person can be 
 
 turned 
 * It is not necessary to the validity of an attachment that the prisoner 
 
 should be brought up and turned over {Wroe v. Clayton, 16 Sim. 183); but 
 
 he mav be turned over on a writ of habeas, obtained on his own application 
 
 (ibid.). 
 + The returns to the writ of habeas corpiis must be filed in the Record 
 
 and Writ Clerk's office {Oldfield v. Cobbett, 2 Ph. 289). 
 
366 MODES or enforcing the payment op costs. 
 
 over to 
 Whitecross 
 Street 
 Prison. 
 
 Proceed- 
 ings on 
 retnrn of 
 non est 
 inve?itus. 
 
 Serjeant- 
 at-arms. 
 
 shall be removed to the former by habeas from any other 
 prison. In a case of Davies v. Nixon, an order was made 
 for turning over a defendant to Whitecross Street, on the 
 plaintiff's application (^Set. 1263), but it appears that the 
 gaoler of Whitecross Street refused to receive him (s. c. 
 11 W. R. 62). The effect of the proviso in the Act was 
 not decided in that case, and there is no later reported 
 case upon the point. Qu. as to the practice. On the com- 
 mittal of the prisoner, the other party is then entitled to a 
 commission of sequestration against his estate and effects, 
 which is granted on a motion as of course. 
 
 If the sheriff returns non est inventus to a writ of attach- 
 ment, the person prosecuting the decree or order is entitled 
 to an order for a Serjeant at arms * (I Sm. Ch. Pr, 227 ; 
 and see Ayck. 58). If the Serjeant at arms takes the 
 party, he is brought up and turned over, or if the Serjeant 
 at arms returns the party already in custody, a detaiaer 
 should be lodged against him ; and even in that case, the 
 validity of a subsequent sequestration is doubtful, if the 
 prisoner is not brought up by habeas and turned over 
 ( Const V. Barr, 2 vS*. §• S. 452 ; but see s. c. on appeal, 2 
 Buss. 161). The other party may then, or, if the Serjeant 
 at arms returns non est inventus, at once, obtain an order 
 as of course for a sequestration (1 Sm. Ch. Pr. loc. cit. ; 
 Ayck. 60). But the return of the Serjeant at arms must 
 be filed before the motion for a commission of sequestra- 
 tion is made (^Floyder v. Nangle, 3 Atk. 569). If the ser- 
 
 * It would appear, from the tables given in Set. pp. 1240, 1241, that the 
 party might have a sequestration for non-payment of costs in the first 
 instance on the sheriff's return of non est inventus. Sed qu.: see Dan. Ch. 
 Pr. 813 ; 1 8m. Ch. Pr. 227. The 3rd rule of the 29th Cons. Order, which 
 gives the party prosecuting the decree the option of having a sequestration 
 in the first instance on the sheriff's return of non est inventus, or an order 
 for a Serjeant at arms, applies only in the case of a decree or order directing 
 the payment of money or the performance of some act within a limited time. 
 However, it would seem that on proof of the party being abroad, the Court 
 will dispense with the attachment ^»'0 /onna (Hodgson v. Hodgson, 23 Seav. 
 604 ; Be East of England Bank, 13 W. R. 128) ; and in Westbi/ v. Westht/, 
 5 De G. ^ S. 516, where the party was abroad, there does not appear 
 to have been either an attachment, or an order for a seq'eant at arms 
 before issuing the sequestration. 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY OXE PARTY TO ANOTHBE. 367 
 
 jeant at arms, after taking the prisoner, suffers him to 
 escape, there may be a second order for a Serjeant at 
 arms (^Morris v. Smith, 8 Sim. 33). 
 
 In Westby v. Westby, 5 De G. §• jS'. 516, where the Proeeed- 
 party by whom the costs were ordered to be paid was out of ^"^^ "°'^'''' 
 
 , . . . '■ Sfiquestra- 
 
 the jurisdiction, the sequestrators were ordered to pay the tion. 
 sum in their hands into court to be invested, and an order 
 nisi was then made for payment of the cost§ out of those 
 funds and for substituted service on the solicitor ; and as 
 to the proceedings under a commission of sequestration 
 generally, see Z)an. Ch. Pr.SlI ,seq. If the sequestration Attach- 
 proves ineffectual, the party prosecuting the decree or '^™* °l 
 
 ^ . . seqeant- 
 
 order may, by motion made on notice {Knott v. Cottee, 1 9 at-arms 
 Beav. 470), revive the attachment (ibid.), or the order for ^^fy;,^ 
 the Serjeant at arms {Barnesley v. Powel, Dick. 130 ; 
 Hopkins V. Adcock, ibid. 443 ; Anon. Mos. 246), 
 
 If the person ordered to pay the costs is a peer or has Where a 
 privilege of Parliament, an attachment cannot be issued jip'is 
 against him ; but after service of the subpoena, an order ordered to 
 for a sequestration nisi may be obtained by motion as of 
 course, on affidavit of service and non-payment. A copy 
 of this order should be served personally ; but substituted 
 service may be allowed {Marquis of Lothian v. Garforth, 
 5 Ves. 113). If no cause is shown within the time fixed 
 by the order nisi, it is made absolute by a motion as of 
 course, and the writ of sequestration issues. A peer or 
 member of parliament is not in contempt until the order 
 has been made absolute (1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 223 ; Set. 1225, 
 1226, 1241). 
 
 Where a corporation is ordered to pay costs, on affidavit Process 
 of personal service of the subpoena on the acting officer of ^frpOTa-'^ 
 it, a distringas is made out by the solicitor and sealed by the tion. 
 Clerk of Records and AVrits. If the sheriff returns nulla 
 bona, an alias distringas and a pluries distringas must issue 
 before sequestration will be ordered. Upon the return of 
 a pluries distringas, an order absolute for sequestration is 
 made in the first instance. If the sheriff returns " issues 
 40s." (which is the usual return on the first distringas), or 
 
368 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Prisoner 
 
 cannot be 
 
 discharged 
 
 ■without 
 
 payment 
 
 of costs of 
 
 contempt. 
 
 Costs of 
 interlocu- 
 tory appli- 
 cations. 
 
 issues in the increased amount to either of the subsequent 
 writs of distringas, sequestration nisi only is ordered (1 
 Sm. Ch. Pr. 225 ; Set 1227, 1241 ; Ayck. 601, 602 ; and 
 see Harvey v. East India Company, 2 Vern. 395, 3 Mer. 
 544, n. ; Lowten v. Mayor Sfc. of Colchester, 3 Mer. 546). 
 But in Mayor §-c. of London v. Haberdashers^ Company 
 (cited in Set. 1227) an order for sequestration was made 
 absolute in the first instance on a return of 40s. issues. 
 
 If a party in contempt for non-payment of costs, on 
 being brought up pays the costs, but refuses to pay the 
 costs of the contempt, he may be turned over until he 
 clears his contempt or until further order {Wright v. 
 Taylor, Set. 1224). 
 
 Where a plaintiff is in contempt for non-payment of 
 the costs of an interlocutory application, the defendant to 
 whom the costs are payable, or some of them, if more than 
 one, may obtain an order on motion that all proceedings 
 be stayed untU the plaintiff has cleared his contempt 
 (Bradbury v. Shawe, 14 Jur. 1042 ; and see Wilson v. 
 Bates, 3 My. Sf C. 197, 203); and if the plaintiffs are 
 husband and wife suing jointly, a motion against the hus- 
 band alone is not informal {Bradbury v. Shawe, loc. cit.) 
 If the plaintiff continues to make default, an order may, 
 it seems, be obtained that he clear his contempt within a 
 limited time, or in default the bill be dismissed with costs 
 (see the cases cited ante, p. 55). As to what proceedings 
 in the cause may be taken by a plaintiff in contempt, see 
 1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 211 ; and in addition to the cases there 
 cited, see Neioton v. Ricketts, 11 Beav. 67, where it was 
 held that a person to whom costs are awarded may pro- 
 ceed with the taxation though he is in contempt ; and 
 Story V. Official Manager of National Insurance Com- 
 pany, 2 N. R. 351, where it was held that the plaintiff, 
 though in contempt, might file replication in answer to a 
 motion to dismiss for want of prosecution. A person in 
 contempt for non-payment of costs may move to set off 
 costs {Cattell v. Simons, 6 Beav. 306); but he cannot 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER. 369 
 
 apply for the costs of an abaudoned motion (ISllis v. 
 TValmesley, 4 L. J. ch. 461, C P. C. temp. Cottenham 
 207). As to staying further proceedings by parties in de- 
 fault for non-payment of costs, see further joosf, pp. 382'sey. 
 
 Orders of Courts of Equity being by Stat. 1 & 2 Vict. Discharge 
 c. 110 s. 18, made equivalent to judgments of Courts of where 
 Common Law, the Court of Chancery has power under the '^°^^ "J^ . 
 provisions of Stat. 48 Geo. 3, c. 123, to discharge from 
 custody a prisoner, who has lain in prison for twelve 
 calendar months, under an attachment for non-payment of 
 costs amounting to less than i€20 ( Tolson v. Dykes, 1 Ph. 
 439; Lister -v. Lister, 14 Jur. 300*); and the prisoner 
 may be discharged as to such costs, though detainers for 4f 
 
 other costs amounting to more than £20 are lodged against 
 him ( Tolson v. Dykes, lac. cit. ). 
 
 The Court has no power under the 17 th rule of Stat, under the 
 1 Wm. 4 c. 36, s. 15, to discharge a person in custody cy Acts. 
 for non-payment of costs ( Snowball v. Dixon, 2 De G. §" 
 S. 9, notwithstanding Bennett v. Chudleigh, 2 Y. ^ C. C. 
 C. 164; and see Deio v. Clark, 3 Mac. 8f G. 357; Alli- 
 bone V. Jones, 8 Jur. 678 ; Robey v. Whitewood, 7 Beav. 
 57). The proper course for the prisoner in such case is 
 to obtain his discharge under the Bankruptcy Act, in pur- 
 suance of the provisions of Stat. 1 Wm. 4, c. 36, the 16th 
 section of which enacts : 
 
 ' That the discharge of any prisoner adjudicated upon 
 under authority of an Act passed in the seventh year of 
 his present Majesty's reign, intituled "An Act to amend 
 and consolidate the Laws for the Relief of Insolvent Deb- 
 tors in England " or any other Act that may be hereafter 
 passed for the relief of insolvent debtors, shall and may 
 extend to all process issuing from any Court of Equity for 
 any contempt of such Court, for non-payment of such 
 money, or of costs, charges, and expenses in such Court, 
 and that in such case the said discharge shall be deemed 
 
 * The marginal note to the report of this case ini H. ^ Tw. 174, appears 
 to be inaccurate. 
 
 B B 
 
370 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 to extend to all costs which such prisoner shall be liable 
 to pay in consequence or by reason of such contempt, or 
 on purging the same, and that every discharge so adjudi- 
 cated as aforesaid, as to any debt or damages of any 
 creditor of such prisoner, shall be deemed to extend also 
 to all costs incurred by such creditor before the filing of 
 such prisoner's schedule, in any action or siiit brought by 
 such creditor against such prisoner for the purpose of the 
 recovery of the same, and that all persons as to whose 
 demands for any such costs, money, or expenses, any such 
 person shall be so adjudged to be discharged, shall be 
 deemed and taken to be creditors of such prisoner in res- 
 pect thereof, and entitled to the benefits of all the provi- 
 sions made for creditors by the said Act, or any future 
 Act, subject nevertheless to such ascertaining of the 
 amount of the said demands as may be had by taxation or 
 otherwise, and to such examination thereof as is in the 
 said last-mentioned Act, or as shall be in any future Act, 
 provided in respect of all claim to a dividend of such 
 insolvent's estate and effects.' The jurisdiction of the 
 Court for the relief of insolvent debtors is now vested in 
 the Court of Bankruptcy, by ' the Bankruptcy Act, 1861 ' 
 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 1). The discharge under the 
 Insolvent Acts does not get rid of a sequestration previ- 
 ously issued ( Tatham v. Parker, 1 Sm. §• G. 506). 
 Costs of The costs payable by the party in contempt, for an 
 
 contempt, attachment issued but not executed, are lis. 2c?. ; if ex- 
 ecuted, 13s. Sd. (1 Sm. Cli. Pr. 213, citing Brown v. Lee, 
 11 Beav. 379). The costs of any process beyond (^ex. gr. 
 where a defendant is brought up by a messenger, or by 
 the Serjeant at arms, or turned over, or, if a sequestra- 
 tion has been issued) are taxed costs {Braith, R. §• W. 
 Pr. 154; 1 Sm. Ch. Pr. he. cit.). In Thornhill v. 
 Tliornhill, 1 Jur. n. s. 73, 3 W. R. 151, where a person 
 committed for contempt in attempting to marry a ward of 
 Court was liberated on an undertaking to pay the costs 
 occasioned by his contempt, it was held that the costs of 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER. 371 
 
 affidavits used on a previous motion to restrain intercourse 
 with tlie ward were part of sucli costs. 
 
 The costs of contempt are not recoverable by subpojna How m- 
 and attachment, and are not costs in the cause (see the <=°^^''^^1''- 
 cases cited ante, p. 38). The payment of them should, 
 therefore, be enforced before the prisoner is released ; 
 otherwise they will be lost. 
 
 If a defendant in contempt, whether in custody or not. How dis- 
 for want of his answer is willing to file the same, he is "^^'"S'^'^- 
 entitled, upon a certificate of his answer having been filed, 
 and upon affidavit of payment or tender of the costs of 
 his contempt, to obtain an order to discharge him from 
 his contempt, upon motion or petition of course' (1 Stn. 
 Ch. Pr. 212, citing Graij v. Campbell, I E. ^ M. 323; 
 and see Dan. Ch. Pr. 358). ' If the defendant applies for 
 the order before paying or tendering the costs, the order 
 is drawn up for his discharge upon payment or tender of 
 costs, and the sheriff, or other person in authority, is 
 bound to discharge him, upon his producing such order 
 and a receipt for the costs, or an affidavit of tender and 
 refusal. The order may be drawn up for the immediate 
 discharge of the defendant, if his soHcitor signs a consent 
 to the petition, undertaking to pay the costs of the con- 
 tempt' (1 Sm. Ch. Pr. loc. cit.) ; or upon payment 
 into court of a sum to Unswer the costs subject to taxation 
 (Felkin V. Herbert, 12 W. E. 332). 
 
 The plaintiff does not now, by accepting the costs of a Process 
 contempt incurred by the defendant in not putting in his an'g™^"^ 
 answer, waive his right to take up the process at the waived by 
 stage at which it was stopped by the order of discharge costTof ^ 
 (12 Cons. Ord. r. 7; and see Taylor v. Salmon, 3 3Iy. contempt. 
 §• C. 109). If the defendant puts in his answer without Answer 
 paying the costs of the contempt, the plaintiff may move "^^^ ^g. 
 to have it taken off the file (Coyle v. Alleyne, 16 Beav. the file if 
 
 costs of 
 
 548 ; Wilkin v. Nainby, 4 Ha. 475). But if he intends contempt 
 to do so, he should not take an office copy or accept the "°' P^i<l- 
 answer at all {Landers v. Allen, 6 Sim. 619). 
 
 B B 2 
 
372 MODES OF ENFOECING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Order for If an order has been made for a Serjeant at arms, and 
 arirms ^^ cannot apprehend the party prosecuted, the order for 
 not dis- the Serjeant at arms cannot be discharged, nor the con- 
 without tempt thereupon, without a certificate under the hand of 
 payment ^he serieant at arms that his fees have been paid. And 
 
 01 nis fees. '' '■ 
 
 after the order has been drawn up and passed, no private 
 or other agreement shall be made between the party pro- 
 secuting the contempt and the person standing in con- 
 tempt, or on their behalf, for a compromise of the suit or 
 the discharge of the contempt, unless such satisfaction 
 shall be made, and a certificate thereof shall be produced 
 to the Court (30 Cons. Ord. r. 2). 
 Discharge Stat. 1 Wm. IV. c. 36, s. 15, r. 16, which provides for 
 of prisoner ^|^g seizure by sequestrators of any books, &c., ordered to 
 costs of his be delivered or deposited, enables the Court to make 
 under"^ such Order for the discharge of the prisoner upon such 
 1 Wm. IV. terms, and if it shall see fit making any costs in the 
 
 e. 36, rule , /-, , n i= J 
 
 16. cause, as to the Court shall seem proper. 
 
 Eule 17. R. 17 provides that in any other case of a commitment 
 
 for contempt not specially provided for by the Act, the 
 Court may make such order for the discharge of the 
 prisoner upon any such terms, and making if the Court 
 shall see fit any costs in the cause, as to the Court shall 
 seem proper. As to this rule, see ante, pp. 268, 269. In 
 De Combe v. De Combe, 3 Jur. fi. s. 712, the Court 
 allowed a small sum out of the corpus of the estate to the 
 executrix and tenant for life, for payment of the costs of 
 a contempt incurred by her. 
 Rule 18. K. 18 2>rovides 'that where any person committed 
 
 sory dis- ^^^ contempt shall be entitled to his discharge upon 
 charge. applying to the Court, but shall omit to make such applica- 
 tion, the Court may, upon any such report as aforesaid, 
 compulsorily discharge such person from the contempt 
 and from custody, and pay the costs of the contempt out 
 of any funds belonging to him over which the Court may 
 have power, or make them costs in the cause as against 
 him, or may discharge him from the contempt, but leave 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER. 373 
 
 him in custody for the costs, -which may be cleared if he 
 be insolvent under the provisions hereinafter contained in 
 that behalf.' 
 
 The 16th section of the Act provides that the dis- Section 1 6. 
 charge of a prisoner imder the Insohency Acts shall 
 extend to process from a Court of Equity (see ante, 
 p. 369). And the 17th section is as follows : — 
 
 ' That where the process of contempt is for the non- Section 17. 
 performance of an act, for example, the not answering the 
 plaintiff's bill, and the bill in equity, to which the insol- 
 vent is a party, is taken pro confesso, and he has not paid 
 the costs of the contempt, or the insolvent has fully 
 answered the plaintiff's bill or interrogatories, or otherwise 
 cleared his contempt, except as far as regards the payment 
 of the costs, or it has become in event unnecessary for him 
 to do the act for non-performance of which he was com- 
 mitted or attached, the Court of Equity in which the suit 
 is depending shall, upon the application of the party in 
 contempt, discharge him from the same, except as to the 
 costs thereof, for which he shall remain in custody, and 
 such costs shall be deemed within the provision lastly 
 hereinbefore contained, and he shall be dischargeable 
 therefrom and from the process of contempt in like 
 manner as if the process of contempt were for noii-pay- 
 ment of money or costs : Provided that this order or 
 regulation shall not weaken any of the other powers by 
 this Act given, nor shall anything herein contained lessen 
 the operation of the said Act for the relief of insolvent 
 debtors.' The application under this section may be made 
 ex parte (^Robinson v. Stanford, 7 Jur. 667). It is not 
 necessary that the defendant should have been adjudicated 
 an insolvent (ibid.). 
 
 The Statute 2 Wm. IV. c. 68, after reciting the above 2 Wm.iv. 
 Act, enacts that ' in all cases of contempt other than and 
 besides those provided for by the last-mentioned Act, 
 where any person or persons are, or is, or shall at any 
 time hereafter be, in prison imder or by reason of any 
 
374 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 commitment or attachment directed by or issued out of 
 the Court of Chancery or His Majesty's Court of Ex- 
 chequer, the Court of Equity by which such commitment 
 shall have been directed, or out of which such attachment 
 shall have issued, shall (upon the application of the person 
 or persons against whom such commitment or attachment 
 hath been directed or issued) have the power, if it shall so 
 think fit, to discharge such persons or person from their, 
 his, or her contempt, except as to the costs thereof, for 
 which costs they, he, or she shall remain in custody ; and 
 such costs shall be deemed within the hereinbefore-recited 
 provisions of the said last-mentioned Act, and they, he, 
 or she shall be discharged therefrom and from the process 
 of contempt in like manner as is in the said last-mentioned 
 Act provided for in cases of process of contempt for non- 
 payment of money or costs : Provided that this Act shall 
 not weaken any of the powers by the said Act passed in 
 the first year of His present Majesty given, and that 
 nothing herein contained shall lessen the operation of the 
 said Act for the relief of insolvent debtors.' 
 Discharge As to the costs of a pauper's contempt, and the cases 
 costeT/''^' ^"^ere the same will be paid out of the Suitors' Fee Fund, 
 contempt, and how application for that purpose should be made, see 
 
 ante, pp. 268, seq. 
 
 Discharge Where the plaintiff waives the contempt, the defendant 
 
 withrat'"''^ is entitled to be discharged without paying the costs of 
 
 payment it ; ex. gr. where the plaintiff replies to the defendant's 
 
 contempt answer {Haynes v. Ball, 5 Beav. 140 ; Oldfield v. Coh- 
 
 rfoTher' ^'"^^^ ^ ^^- ^^^)' ^"^ amends his bill after the defendant 
 
 party. has filed his answer ( Gray v. Campbell, I R. Sf M. 323), 
 
 or before {Ball v. Etches, ibid. 324); but not if he only 
 
 obtains an order to amend without filing the amendments 
 
 {Livingstone v. Cooke, 9 Sim. 468); or neglects to bring 
 
 the plaintiff up to the bar of the Court mthin the time 
 
 limited by 12 Cons. Ord. rr. 2, 3 {Fortescue v. Hallett, 
 
 5 IV. R. 747 ; and see the notes to the rules referred to 
 
 in Morgan's Ch. Acts §• Onls.); or does not move to have 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHEP. 375 
 
 the bill taken pro confesso against the defendant within 
 the proper time (13th rule of 1 JVm. TV. c. 36 ; and see 
 Collins V. Collyer, Cr. i; Ph. 262); but secus if the delay 
 has resulted from proceedings taken by the defendant 
 {Bates V. Frost, 9 Jur. 291). If the time expu-es during 
 vacation, the prisoner may be brought up at the judge's 
 private house {Clark \. Clark, 1 Ph. 116; Needham\. 
 Needham, ibid. 640). A prisoner once entitled to be dis- 
 charged cannot waive that right {Haynes v. Ball, 4 Beav. 
 101; Greening Y. Greening, 1 Beav. 121). But where 
 the party is not in custody and seeks to set aside proceed- 
 ings founded on the attachment, waiver of irregularities 
 on the attachment is a valid objection to his motion 
 {Needham v. Needham, loc. cit.). 
 
 If a person has been once legally taken under a writ of A person 
 attachment, he cannot after being once discharged be again charged 
 taken under the same process ; but secus, .where the first cannot be 
 taking was only irregular {ex. gr. effected in a privileged 
 place) and therefore nugatory {Andrewes v. Walton, 1 
 Mac. ^- G. 380). 
 
 If the sheriff let the prisoner go, he may be committed Liability 
 by orders nisi and absolute {Kendal v. Baron, 1 Dick. ^^ ;^ ' 
 89) ; and he may be ordered on motion to compensate the properly 
 party at whose instance the w^rit was issued in damages ing prisou- 
 (as to which and the measure of the sheriff's liability, see '^'^• 
 the cases cited ante, p. 38 j. So the marshal! of the King's 
 Bench, to whose custody a prisoner in the custody of 
 the sheriff under an attachment by this Court had been 
 turned over by habeas, was made answerable in damages 
 for letting his prisoner go {Dewes v. Beresford, 5 Sim. 
 531). Obedience to a writ of habeas corpus may be 
 enforced by the process of contempt ( Crowlei/''s case, 2 
 Sloans. 73). If the sheriff makes no return to the writ, sheriff, 
 the practice is to obtain an order that he return the A\'rit '*'^' ?'■'" 
 mthin a given time or stand committed, and in default writ of 
 to obtain a final order for his committal ( Clough v. Cross, ^j. making 
 2 Dick. 555). He may also be amerced by the Court °o return. 
 
376 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Fixed 
 costs of 
 amend- 
 ment and 
 submis- 
 sion to ex- 
 ceptions, 
 how rc- 
 cjvered. 
 
 Costs in- 
 curred in 
 conse- 
 quence of 
 printed 
 bill not 
 having 
 been filed. 
 
 Costs of 
 action at 
 law stayed, 
 how pro- 
 vided for 
 by decree. 
 
 {Dan. Ch. Pr. 327). Where the sheriff let the prisoners 
 out on bail and made no return, they having performed 
 the act for default in which they were attached and ten- 
 dered the costs of contempt, a motion that he should 
 return the writ was granted with costs ; and it was held, 
 that it was not competent for him to show that the plain- 
 tiff had sustained no damage {Sucjden v. Hull, 28 Beav. 
 263) : but no order was made on a subsequent motion for 
 the sheriff to pay the costs of a messenger to bring up the 
 defendants and other costs {ibid.'). In Collard v. Hare, 5 
 Sim. 10, where the sheriff re-took the prisoners before he 
 made a return to the writ, no order was made upon him 
 to pay costs. If the sheriff improperly returns that he has 
 taken bail, a messenger will be ordered to go ( Cowdray 
 V. Cross, 24 Beav. 445). 
 
 A messenger having a defendant in custody under an 
 attachment and having afterwards let him go upon an un- 
 dertaking to pay the costs, cannot use the process of the 
 Court to enforce payment {Jenkins v. Sandys, Jac. 233). 
 
 Costs of amending a bill in certain cases, and of submit- 
 ting to answer exceptions, which are fixed costs {ante, pp. 
 24, 28), are not recoverable by subpoena and attachment, 
 but are called for by the solicitor. The former are paya- 
 ble before the bill can be regularly amended ; the latter 
 arc part of the submission. By accepting costs the party 
 waives any irregularity in the order for leave to amend 
 {ante, p. 27). The costs in the suit incurred by reason of 
 the plaintiff's solicitor not having fulfilled his undertaking 
 to file a printed bill, are taxed without order upon a certi- 
 ficate from the Clerk of Records and Writs, that a printed 
 bill has not been filed pursuant to such undertaking, and 
 are recoverable in like manner as costs ordered to be paid 
 by one party in a suit to another (9 Cons. Ord. r. 4). 
 
 Where proceedings in an action at law had been stayed 
 under the common order for the plaintiff to elect between 
 proceeding at law or in equity, the Court, being of opinion 
 that the defendant was entitled to the costs at law, and to 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID Bi' ONE TARTY TO ANOTHER. 377 
 
 meet any difficulty arising from the 226th sec. of the 
 ' Common Law Procedure Act, 1852 ' (15 and 16 Vict, 
 c. 76), inserted a direction in the decree that he might 
 take such proceedings at law for the recovery of the costs 
 as he might be advised, notwithstanding the order staying 
 the action (^Simpson v. Sadd, 3 JF. R. 191). 
 
 2. As a Judgment, under 1 §• 2 Vict. c. 110, and 3 §• 4 
 Vict. c. 82. 
 In piirsuance of the provisions of the 18th and 20th By writs 
 sections of Stat. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, the following rules °^/;£";,, 
 (which now form Part III. of Cons. Orel. XXIX.) were 
 framed for the purpose of regulating the new method of 
 enforcing decrees and orders of the Court of Chancery by 
 Ji. fa. and eleffit given by the Act. 
 
 6. ' Every person to whom in any cause or matter Writs to 
 pending in this court any sum of money or any costs shall ^'^,™i 
 have been directed to be paid,* shall, after the lapse of one lapse of 
 month from the time when the decree or order for pay- °'^''™°'' • 
 ment was duly passed and entered, be entitled to sue out 
 
 one or more f writ or writs (£ fieri facias, or writer writs 
 oi elegit of the form set forth in schedules (F) and (G) if 
 or as near thereto as the circumstances of the case may 
 require' (lO^A May 1839 ; Ord. 1). 
 
 7. ' Upon every such decree or order hereafter to be Date of 
 entered, one of the entering clerks shall, at the request of «°'Y'? ^® 
 
 ' _ ° ^ T. marked on 
 
 the party leaving the same, mark the day of the month decree or 
 and year on which the same is so left for entry ; and no °^ ^^' 
 writ oi fieri facias ox elegit shall be sued out upon any 
 
 * The words ' to be paid by the plaintiffs ' are now, in consequence of 
 this order, added to the old form of decree dismissing the bill with costs, 
 which was merely ' that the bill be dismissed with costs.' See Taylcr v. 
 Jardine, 1 Ha. 316. 
 
 t Where a writ of /. fa. in one county has failed to satisfy the demand, 
 another writ may issue in another county (Spencer v. Allen, 2 Ph. 216 ; and 
 see Hodgson v. Hodgson, 23 Beav. 604). The remedy hy fi. fa. does not 
 interfere with the other remedies provided by the practice of the Court 
 {Strectrn t. Wltitmorr, 5 Beav. 228). A sequestration was directed after a 
 return of nulla bona to a writ oifi. fa. ( Wcsthi/ v. Wcsthy, 5 Be G. ^ S. 516). 
 
 i See post, Appendix II., Forms 2, 3, i, 5, 6, 7. 
 
378 MODES OF ENFOKCXNG THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 How writs 
 are to be 
 executed. 
 
 Writ of 
 venditioni 
 exponas, in 
 -yvliat case 
 to be is- 
 siied. 
 
 How writs 
 are to be 
 endorsed. 
 
 such decree or order, unless the date of such entry is so 
 marked thereon ' {lOth May 1839 ; Ord. 2). 
 
 8. ' Such writs when sealed shall be delivered to the 
 sheriff or other officer to whom the execution of the likewrits 
 issuing out of the superior Courts of Common Law belongs, 
 and shall be executed by such sheriff or other officer as 
 nearly as may be in the same manner in which he ought 
 to execute such like writs. And such writs, when returned 
 by such sheriff or other officer, shall be delivered to the 
 parties or solicitors by whom respectively they were sued 
 out, and shall thereupon be filed as of record in the office 
 of the Clerks of Records and Writs. And for the execution 
 of such writs such sheriff or other officer shall not take or 
 be allowed any fees other than such as are or shall be from 
 time to time allowed by lawful authority, for the execution 
 of the like writs issuing out of the superior Courts of 
 Common Law' (lO^A May 1839 ; Ord. 3). 
 
 9. ' Where it appears upon the return of any such writ 
 of fieri facias as aforesaid, that the sheriff or other officer 
 has by virtue of such writ seized but not sold any goods 
 of the person directed to pay such sum of money or costs 
 as aforesaid, the person to whom such sum of money or 
 costs is payable shall, immediately after such writ with 
 such return shall have been filed as of record, be at liberty 
 to sue out a writ of venditioni exponas in the form set 
 forth in Schedule H,* or as near thereto as the circum- 
 stances of the case may require ' (10^/i May 1839 ; Ord.A). 
 
 10. ' On every such writ of fieri facias and elegit so to 
 be issued as aforesaid, there shall be endorsed, in addition 
 to the particulars required by the 2nd or 5th rule of Order 
 3,t the words ' By the Court,' and also thereunder the. 
 
 * See post, Appendix II. Form 8. 
 
 t These particulars are tile name, or firm, and place of business of the 
 solicitor issuing the writ, and also (if his place of business is more than 
 three miles from the Eecord and Writ Clerks' office) another proper place 
 (to be called his address for service), to be not more than three miles from 
 the said office, where writs, &c., may be left for him. If the Solicitor is 
 only an agent, he must add the name, or iirm, and place of business of his 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTIIEK. 379 
 
 calling and place of residence of the person against whom 
 such writ shall be issued ; and every such writ shall be 
 also endorsed for the sum to be levied, according to the 
 form used upon like writs issuing out of the superior 
 Courts of Common Law ' {lOth May 1839 ; Ord. 5). 
 
 11. 'Where it appears, upon the return of any writ Writs of 
 of fieri facias or any writ of elegit issued in pursuance of j^^f^^' 
 the 6th rule of this Order, that the person against whom ecdcsi- 
 such wi-it was so issued is a beneficed clerk, and has no scqmstrari 
 goods or chattels, nor any lay fee, in the bailiwick of the f"""^- 
 sheriff to whom such writ was directed, the person to whom 
 
 the sum of money or costs mentioned in such writ is or 
 are payable, shall, irmnediately after such writ mth such 
 return shall have been filed as of record, be at liberty to 
 sue out one or more writ or writs of Jiei-i facias de bonis 
 ecclesiasticis, or one or more writ or writs of sequestrari 
 facias, in the form stated in Schedule J,* or as near 
 thereto as the circumstances of the case may allow' (l^th 
 July 1857 ; Ord. 2). See, before this rule, Allen v. 
 Williams, 2 Sm. §• G. 455. 
 
 12. ' On every such writ oi fieri facias de bonis eccle- How to be 
 siasticis or writ of sequestrari facias so to be issued as 
 aforesaid, there shall be endorsed, in addition to the par- 
 ticulars required by the 2nd or 5th rule of Order 3,t the 
 
 words ' By the Court,' and also thereunder the calling, if 
 any, and place of residence, if any, of the person against 
 whom such writ shall be issued; and every such w^it 
 shall be also endorsed for the sum to be taken or levied, 
 according to the form used uponKke writs issuing out of the 
 superior Courts of Common Law'(18^/<J-«Z?/1857; Ord.Z). 
 
 13. ' Such writs, when sealed, shall be delivered to the How to be 
 bishop, and shall be executed by him as nearly as may be '^''°'="''^'l- 
 
 principal. Persons suing or defending in person must endorse their name 
 and place of residence, and (if their residence is more than three miles from 
 the Eecord and Writ Clerks' oflce) an address for service (3 Cuus. Ord. 
 rr. 2, 5). 
 
 * See;^osi!, Appendix 11. Forms 9, 10, 11. 
 t See ante, p. 376, ii. 
 
380 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OP COSTS. 
 
 A charging 
 order on 
 stock may 
 be ob- 
 tained 
 for costs. 
 
 With an 
 interim 
 stop order. 
 
 in the same manner in which he ought to execute such 
 like writs issuing out of the superior Courts of Common 
 Law. And such writs, when returned by the bishop, 
 shall be delivered to the parties or solicitors by whom 
 respectively they were sued out, and shall thereupon be 
 filed as of record in the office of the Clerks of the Records 
 and "Writs. And for the execution of such writs, the 
 bishop or his officers shall not take or be allowed any fees 
 other than such as are or shall be from time to time 
 allowed by lawful authority for the execution of the like 
 writs issuing out of the superior Courts of Common Law ' 
 {I8th July 1857, Ord. 4). 
 
 A person to whom costs are ordered to be paid may 
 also obtain a charging order on any Government stock, 
 funds, or annuities, or any stock or shares of or in any 
 public company standing in the name of the person by 
 whom the costs are payable, or of a trustee for him 
 (Statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, ss. 14, 18 ; and see Blahe v. 
 White, 3 V. 8f C. 434 ; and the form of the order in 
 Stanley v. Bond, 7 Beav. 386) ; or on any interest to 
 which the debtor may be entitled in any such stocks or 
 shares, or in stocks or shares standing in the name of the 
 Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, or the 
 dividends, interest, or annual produce thereof (Statute 
 3 & 4 Vict. c. 82, s. 1). In Wells v. Gibbs, 22 Beav. 
 204, a charging order was obtained on stock standing to 
 the credit of one suit, in which defendants in another suit, 
 who had been ordered to pay costs, were interested, with 
 an interim stop order. The order may be made by a 
 Judge of- the Court of Equity (see the cases cited above, 
 and Statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, sec. 19). No proceedings 
 can be taken to have the benefit of the charge until the 
 expiration of six calendar months from the date of the 
 order {ibid.) ; but this does not prevent the creditor from 
 obtaining a stop order ( Watts v. Jefferyes, 3 Mac. ^ G. 
 372 ; and see Wells v. Gibbs, loc. cit.). A stop order 
 may be obtained on a cheque of the Accountant General 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY TO ANOTHER. 381 
 
 in favour of the debtor, if it has not been delivered out, 
 but it cannot be taken in execution ( Courtoy v. Vincent, 
 15 Beat. 486). Defendants dismissed with costs, though Defend- 
 they have registered the decree, cannot obtain a stop ^iggea"' 
 order on funds afterwards realised by the plaintiff in the ^^^^ "° 
 suit (Miller v. Priddin, 5 W. R. 571 ; and see Flockton funds in 
 v. Peake, 10 Z. T. n. s. 368). But trustees dismissed "^'^ «"^*- 
 have been allowed costs out of the funds in the suit 
 {D'Oechsner y. Scott, 24 Beav. 239, where the next 
 friend of a married woman was insolvent) ; and so a 
 receiver (ante, p. 277). 
 
 Where costs are ordered to be paid by a corporation. Charging 
 the order or decree is a claim or demand upon their pro- ^gg^g ^^ 
 perty within the saving of the 92nd section of the property 
 Municipal Corporation Act (5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 76), tion. 
 although they are sued as trustees of a navigation ; and 
 a charging order for such costs on stock belonging to 
 them was granted (Attorney General v. Corporation of 
 Thetford, 8 W. R. 467). 
 
 A decree of the Court of Chancery may also be Decree for 
 enforced in equity as a charge on the real estate of the i^e^en™'^''' 
 person liable to pay the costs, awarded by the decree, forced as 
 under section 13 of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. But parties to on real 
 whom costs are awarded have no lien on the other party's f^'f''^; 
 
 . bnt gives 
 
 real estate for their costs, until the conditions of section no lien till 
 19 are complied with ; and a sale after a final decree is not ^^'^ ™'"'' 
 pendente lite. A bill to set aside a sale by plaintiff of 
 real estate immediately after a decree ordering him to pay 
 costs, was therefore dismissed with costs (Nortcliffe v. War- 
 burton, 8 Jur. n. s. 854, overruling s. c. 10 W. R. 463). 
 
 The effect of the Statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 is to make Interest on 
 interest recoverable on costs where payable by one party i"^^^™ ^^ 
 to another, but not on costs payable out of a fund (At- 
 torney General v. Nethercote, 11 Sim. 529).* But this has 
 
 Vict. 
 110. 
 
 * Where the time for payment fixed by a foreclosure decree is enlarged, 
 interest is payable on the amount of the costs, but not on the interest due 
 when the time is enlarged {Whitfield v. Roberts, 9 W. R. 444). 
 
382 MODES OP ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Under 23 
 and 24 
 Vict. e. 
 127. 
 
 been remedied by Statute 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, the 27th 
 section of -jphich is as follows : — 
 
 * Wherever a decree or order is made by the Court of 
 Chancery, in which the payment of any costs previously 
 taxed, either in the suit or proceeding in which such 
 decree or order is made, or in any other suit or proceed- 
 ing, is ordered, and whether the certificate of such pre- 
 vious taxation have been made before the passing of this 
 Act, or be made thereafter, it shall be ^lawful for the 
 Court or Judge making such decree or order to order and 
 direct the amount of such costs, as taxed, including the 
 costs of taxation as ascertained by the said certificate, to 
 be paid with interest thereon at the rate of four pounds 
 per centum per annum, from the date of the certificate, 
 the amount of such interest to be verified by affidavit, 
 and to be payable and recoverable out of the same fund 
 or in the same manner as the amount of such costs.' 
 
 Where costs were ordered to be raised by sale of an 
 estate, and there had been delay in eiFecting the sale, the 
 Court made an order for payment of interest under this 
 section (^Carter v. Carter, 2 iV! B. 512). 
 
 Staying a second Suit by Persons in default for' 
 Non-payment of Costs. 
 
 Parties in 
 default for 
 non-pay- 
 ment of 
 costs can- 
 not insti- 
 tute fur- 
 ther pro- 
 ceedings 
 for the 
 same 
 matters. 
 
 If a plaintiff whose bill has been dismissed with costs, 
 institutes a fresh suit relating to the same matters, pro- 
 ceedings in it will be stayed until the costs of the first suit 
 are paid (^Pickett v. Loggon, 5 Ves. 702 : Holbrooke v. Cra- 
 craft, ibid. 706, n. ; Baldwyn v. Malo, 3 Anstr. 835 ; 
 Lautour v. Holcombe, 1 1 Beav. 624 ; Budge v. Budge, 
 12 Beav. 385) ; but the second bill must be such that it 
 could have been produced by a fair amendment from the 
 first (Budge v. Budge, loc. cit. ; and see Tayler v. Tay- 
 ler, 12 Beav. 221). So where the plaintiff' abandoned 
 proceedings in a matter and filed a bill {Foley v. Smith, 
 12 Beav. 154). The rule applies to the representatives 
 
COSTS TO BE PAID BY ONE PARTY To ANOTHER. 383 
 
 of a deceased plaintiiF filing an original bill, after the first 
 suit has abated (Altree y. Hordern, 5 Beav. 623 ; Long v. 
 Storie, 13 Jur. 1091) ; or to the original plaintiiF filing a 
 fresh bill against the representatives of a deceased defen- 
 dant (■S'/^Ves v. SewcU, 5 Sim. 193); but not to a married 
 woman instituting a second suit by a new next friend, after 
 the death of the next friend in the first suit insolvent 
 (Hind V. Whitmore, 2 K. ^- J. 458). But no order will 
 be made if the defendant has taken any proceedings in the 
 suit before applying for it ( Onge v. Truelock, 2 Mol. 41). 
 And it has been held at law that the Court may, in its 
 discretion, refuse to stay proceedings if the second action 
 appear from the circumstances of the case to have been 
 brought vexatiously and oppressively {Prowse v. Loxdale, 
 11 W. R. 643). The motion cannot be made until the 
 costs in the first suit have been taxed {Anon. 6 Mad. 
 68, n. ; Ernest v. Partridge, 8 L. T. n. s. 683). But 
 where a summons for the purpose was taken out before, 
 but not heard till after, taxation, the Court made the 
 order, but made the applicants pay the costs (^Ernest v. 
 Partridge, loc. cit). A defendant, to whose cross bill a 
 general demurrer has been allowed with costs, may file 
 interrogatories for the examination of the plaintiff without 
 paying the costs of the cross suit (Erg v. Ernest, 3 N. R. 63). 
 
 If a bill which has been dismissed with costs is restored Hearing of 
 on terms of the plaintifiF paying the costs of the dismissal, hissed 
 and the defendant allows the cause to come to a hearing cause, 
 without those costs having been paid, it is then too late not stayed 
 for him to object to the cause being heard (Lorimer v. ^°^ °°°" 
 
 '' o \ payment 
 
 Lorimer, 2 L. J. ch. 13). of costs. 
 
 So a motion cannot be made until the costs of a pre- Further 
 vious motion refused with costs {Oldfield \. Cohbett, 12 f^f^'^" 
 Beav. 91), or abandoned {Bellchamher v. Giani, 3 Mad. same suit 
 550), have been paid. And an order nisi made absolute 
 for want of cause shown was set aside on the grounds of 
 non-payment of the costs of a previous motion refused 
 {^Killing v. Killing, 6 Mad. 68). And as to paying the 
 
384 MODES OF ENFOROIJJG THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 costs of the first trial before proceeding to a new one, see 
 Standen v. Edioards, Beames, app. 15. 
 
 General 
 rule. 
 
 Excep- 
 tions : — 
 i. Where 
 costs are 
 taxed. 
 
 ii. Where 
 costs are to 
 he paid 
 out of an 
 estate or 
 fund. 
 
 iii. Wliere 
 other 
 parts of 
 decree are 
 not exe- 
 cuted. 
 
 4. No Revivor for Costs. 
 
 As a general rule there can be no revivor for costs 
 {Morgan v. Scudamore, 2 Ves. Jun. 313 ; Meredith v. 
 Hughes, 3 Y. S^ J. 188 ; Andrews v. Lochwood, 15 Sim. 
 153, 2 Ph. 339) ; whether the abatement be caused by the 
 death of the party to pay, or the party to receive, the 
 costs {Jupp v. Geering, 5 Mad. 375 * ; Boioyer v. Bea- 
 mish, 2 Jo. 8f Lat. 228 ; White v. Hayward, 2 Ves. 461 ; 
 notwithstanding Lord Loughborough's dicta in Morgan v. 
 Scudamore, 3 Ves. 195); nor does the fact of the defen- 
 dants being a corporate body ( Umphelby v. Waveney Val- 
 ley Railway Company, I J. 8f H. 254), nor the fact that 
 the bill especially prays costs (ibid.), nor that the case 
 occurs since the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 18 (ibid. ; Bowyer v. 
 Beamish, loc. cit. ; and see Robertson v. Southgate, 1 Hare, 
 109), or that the bill was dismissed only as against one 
 defendant who has died (Averall v. Wade, 1 Mol. 571, n. ; 
 Bowyer v. Beamish, loc. cit.), affect this rule. 
 
 The exceptions to the rule are: 1. — Where the costs 
 have been taxed ( White v. Hayward, loc. cit. ; f Lowten 
 V. Mayor of Colchester, 2 Mer. 113, overruling Glenham 
 V. Stutwell, Dick. 14) ; or the taxation has been postponed, 
 on an undertaking that the postponement shall be without 
 prejudice ( rwc/je?- V. Wilhins, 7 Sim. 349). 2. — Where 
 the costs are directed to be paid out of an estate (Morgan 
 V. Scudamore, 3 Ves. 197 ; Jenour v. Jenour, 10 Ves. 
 562), or out of a particular fund (Kemp v. Machrell, 2 
 Ves. 579, where also the costs of a cross bill by a 
 deceased defendant dismissed with costs were set off against 
 his costs of the original suit, which he was allowed out of 
 the funds in court). 3. — Where something in the decree, 
 besides the payment of costs, remains to be executed 
 
 * In the marginal note of this case 'plaintiff' is written for ' defendant.' 
 t A revivor is necessaiy in this case in order to recover the costs. 
 
COSTS PAYABLE OUT OF A FUND OR ESTATE. 385 
 
 {Johnson v. Peck, 2 Ves. 465 ; Kemp v. Mackrell, loc. cit; 
 Morgans. Scudamore, 2 Ves. Jun. 313; and see Fitz- 
 maurice v. Sadleir, 12 Ir. Eq. Rep. 136). In Morgans. 
 Scudamore, 3 Ves. 197, where a decree had been made to 
 set aside deeds for fraud with costs, Lord Loughborough 
 held, on the authority of Price v. Humphreys, before Lord 
 Camden, that the costs were a part of the relief, and al- 
 lowed a revivor for them, though the rest of the decree 
 had been executed ; but see Betagh v. Concanon, cited 
 post. 4. — Where the costs are ordered to be paid by an iv. wiere 
 officer of the court, ex. gr. a receiver in the cause {Betagh ^°^'^ ^^^., 
 V. Concanon, LI. §- G. temp. Plunket, 355). by a re- 
 
 T\Tiere the party to whom the costs were payable died ''®'^®''- 
 before taxation, the Court (the suit not having been re- 
 vived) refused with costs a motion that the Master might 
 proceed with the taxation {Robertson v. Southgate, 7 Hare, where 
 109). But the survivors of several defendants against ^^'^^^^°'^ 
 
 . ... ™^y be 
 
 whom a bill has been dismissed with costs, to be taxed and proceeded 
 paid by the plaintiff, are entitled to proceed with the tax- ^^^■^qT 
 ation of their costs, notwithstanding the death of one of party. 
 such defendants, without a revival of the suit, and although 
 the surviving defendants and the deceased in his lifetime 
 had carried in a joint biU of costs for taxation {Hunter v. 
 Daniel,'! Ha. 281); but see ilfa/tns v. Greenuay, ibid. 
 391, where the defendants had defended separately. 
 
 Section II. — Where Costs are Payable out of a Fund 
 or Estate. 
 
 'If costs arb payable out of a fund standing in the Proeeed- 
 name of the Accountant General, the party having the dMree'o/' 
 carriage of the order leaves the same, together with an order. 
 office copy of the Taxing Master's certificate, with the 
 clerk of the Accountant General in whose division the 
 fund is placed, who prepares a cheque on the Bank of 
 England for the amount, which is countersigned by one 
 
 c c 
 
386 MODES or ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Where 
 costs are 
 charged 
 on an 
 estate, 
 Coiirt mil 
 direct a 
 
 Interest. 
 
 of the Registrars, or by the Masters of Reports and 
 Entries, who also marks his initials against the amount of 
 the costs as carried out in the margin of the certificate of 
 costs ; the cheque is then taken to the Chancery Office, 
 at the Bank of England, where it is cashed upon the 
 solicitor signing his name at the back of the cheque' 
 (1 Sm. Ch. Pr. 229). 
 
 Where a cestui-que-trust having a life interest only is 
 declared entitled to his costs out of the trust property, 
 the Court will not give him a mere lien upon it to be 
 enforced by subsequent proceedings, but will direct an 
 immediate sale for the purpose of defraying them 
 {Burkett V. Spray, 1 M. Sf M. 113). So, as to the costs 
 of infants in an administration suit, see ante, p. 118 ; and 
 in a partition suit, ante, pp. 173, seq. Where an order 
 had been made for the payment of the costs of all parties 
 out of an estate vested in trustees, they having settled 
 with the plaintiff and conveyed the estate to him, an 
 order was made for payment of the other defendants' costs 
 by the plaintiff personally, or in default for a sale of the 
 estate (^Cannell v. Beehy, Beames, app. 7, s. c. sub nom. 
 Cannon v. Beehy, 1 Dick. 115). 
 
 As to interest allowed on costs payable out of a fund or 
 charged upon an estate, see ante, pp. 381, 382. 
 
 By estreat- 
 ing recog- 
 nisances. 
 
 Section III. — Recovery of Costs in the House of Lords, 
 
 The recovery of costs from the appellant* in the House 
 of Lords may be effected by estreating his recognisances. 
 The certificate of costs should be served upon him per- 
 sonally, and a personal demand made for them ; but if the 
 party absents himself to avoid service, the House wUl, on 
 petition, order substituted service on his agent ( Carter v. 
 Palmer, 8 CI. 8f F. 708). Upon the party making de- 
 fault, the House will, on'petition of the party entitled to 
 
 * A respondent never pays costs in the House of Lords. See ante, 
 p. 100. 
 
RECOVERY OF COSTS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 387 
 
 the costs, on two clear days' notice {Macq. Jur. of Ho. of 
 Lds. 270), order the appellant's recognisances to be 
 estreated for payment of the costs together with the 
 costs of the petition ( Callaghan v. Callaghan, 8 CI. 8f F. 
 709). 1^ a substitute has entered into recognisance on 
 behalf of the appellant {ante, p. 97), the proceedings are 
 the same, and proof of the default of the appellant only 
 is sufficient {Alacq. loc. cit). 
 
 ' The estreat of the recognisance is prepared and How 
 certified upon oath by the clerk of the Parliaments, in ''^™'^ 
 pursuance of the order of the House; and the same 
 being delivered in at the office of the Queen's Remem- 
 brancer, in the Exchequer, is filed as of record ; and 
 thenceforth becomes the foundation of prerogative process 
 issuing for the full penal sum in the recognisance* ; the 
 payment of which, being thus enforced as a Crown debt, 
 is placed at the disposal of the Lords of the Treasury, to 
 whom the respondent must apply, by petition, praying that 
 he may be allowed his costs' {Macq. Jur. of Ho. of Lds. 2'71). 
 
 Payment of costs may also be enforced by ordering the ii. By 
 defaulting party into the custody of the Gentleman- defaultms 
 Usher of the black rod, from which he will not be released party into 
 without payment of the costs and the fees of the officers 
 of the House {Macq. loc. cit. ; and Carey v. White, there 
 cited from the journals of the House). 
 
 Or, which is a more effectual remedy, the House will, iii. By 
 on the respondent's petition stating the appellant's default, the'raaner 
 remit the matter to the Court below, with directions that '° ^^° 
 process be issued out of that Court for levying the costs below. 
 {Jenkins v. Blake, and Bath v. Conly, cited from the 
 journals of the House, Macq. 272). 
 
 The House will refuse to hear a further appeal, until The House 
 the costs of a previous appeal are paid {Knox v. Knox, ij^^r a 
 cited from the journals of the House, Macq. 274). second 
 
 appeal 
 from party 
 * By 3 & 4 Wm. IV. c. 99, 3. 32, the Queen's Eemembrancer is required to in default, 
 issue process for enforcing forfeited recognisances once every term, or oftener 
 if required by the Court of Exchequer. 
 
 c c 2 
 
388 MODES OF ENFOKCING THE PATMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 By aotion. 
 
 "By suit in 
 
 equity, 
 
 where. 
 
 Under 
 common 
 order for 
 taxation, 
 on client's 
 applica- 
 tion. 
 
 How 
 enforced. 
 
 Section IV. — Recovery of Costs by Solicitor from 
 his Client. 
 
 1. — By Action at Law or Suit in Equity. 
 
 A solicitor cannot maintain an action against his client 
 for the amount of his bill until one month after delivery 
 of it (6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 37) ; and as to delivery of bills 
 of costs, see ante, ch. vii. sec. 1. 
 
 A solicitor cannot maintain a suit against his client for 
 an account {Allison v. Herring, 9 Sim. 583) ; though pay- 
 ments have been made to him on account (ibid.). But 
 where the solicitor seeks to enforce his rights against the 
 separate property of a married woman, he must file a bill ; 
 as to which and the cases where a married woman's separate 
 property has been held liable, or the contrary, see ante, 
 pp. 259, 260. 
 
 2. — By Process of the Court. 
 
 The common order for taxation of a solicitor's bill of 
 costs contains a submission by the client to pay what may 
 be found due, and an order for payment of the amount to 
 be certified by the Taxing Master within twenty-one days 
 after service of the order and the certificate {Rolls 
 Forms). 
 
 This order may be enforced at the expiration of the 
 time limited by a writ of attachment, and subsequent com- 
 mission of sequestration on the sheriiF's return that the 
 person liable to pay has been taken (see 29 Cons. Ord. 
 r. 2, and Lane v. Oliver, 2 Ha. 97). If the sheriff returns 
 non est inventus, the person prosecuting the order may 
 have at his option either a commission or sequestration in 
 the first instance, or an order for a serjeant at arms (29 
 Cons. Ord. r. 3). As to the proceedings under a writ of 
 attachment and commission of sequestration, see ante, 
 sec. 1. 
 
BY SOLICITOR FROM CLIENT. 389 
 
 Substituted service will be allowed where the party Substi- 
 
 avoids service (i?e Mourilyan, 13 Bear. 84 ; Re Steven- ^^^^^ 
 
 son, 14 Beav. 27 ; Re TVisewold, 16 Beav. 357 ; and see may be 
 the cases cited ante, p. 364). 
 
 Xo demand of the amount found due is necessary, but No 
 
 service of the order and certificate is sufiicient (29 Cons. „!™t^„^^ 
 Ord. V. 1). A small error in the copy of the certificate 
 served is suflficient to invalidate it {Re Reynolds, 10 W. 
 R. 709 ; and see the other cases cited ante, p. 363). 
 
 Payment of the amount found due may also be enforced 'Byfi.fa. 
 by writs oi Ji. fa. and elegit, with interest at -4 per cent. 
 (29 Cons. Ord. rr. 6 to 13, cited ante, pp. 377 seq.). But 
 the mere allocatur of the Taxing Master does not create 
 a judgment under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110. s. \S{Sliaio v. Neale, 
 
 6 Ho. Lds. Ca. 581). But if the solicitor brings an action A con- 
 
 at law for the recovery of his biU after taxation in this ^^^„ an 
 
 court it is a contempt, and the action may be restrained action at 
 
 on a summary application (i?e Campbell, 3 De G. M. §• G. taxation 
 
 585), although the certificate has not been filed within the '" '^^ 
 proper time, which does not render it invalid (ibid.) 
 
 Where one of the parties in whose name the order for Petitioner 
 
 taxation was obtained disputed the authority to use his tion cannot 
 
 name for that purpose, it was held that while the order dispute his 
 
 for taxation stood he could not avoid his liability for pay- without 
 
 ment {Re Thompson §• Debenham, 25 Beav. 245). ^td^the 
 
 If the order for taxation is obtained after action brought, order. 
 
 the usual direction is for payment generally, and that in Where 
 
 orGGr for 
 
 default of such payment the solicitor is to be at liberty, taxation is 
 at any time after two days from the filing of the Master's o^t^^^e^ 
 certificate, without service of the order or of such certifi- action 
 cate, to sue out execution against the petitioner hj Ji. fa. "^""^ '" 
 writ of elegit, or otherwise for the amount certified {Rolls 
 Forms^. 
 
 The common order for taxation on the solicitor's peti- common 
 tion contains no order for payment {Rolls Forms). A order for 
 
 , „ , , , . ... taxation on. 
 
 subsequent order tor payment by the client within a solicitor's 
 limited time is, therefore, necessary in that case. appbca- 
 
390 MODES or ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Interest on 
 costs. 
 
 Interest is recoverable by the solicitor on bis bills of 
 costs, under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 18, if payable by the 
 client personally ; an order for that purpose may be obtained 
 on a special application under 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 27, 
 if payable out of a fund in court (see ante, pp. 382) 
 Where taxation has been ordered on the terms of the 
 client paying a sum of money into court which has been 
 invested and accumulated, the solicitor is not entitled to 
 the accumulations, but only to be paid out of the fund (i?e 
 Smith, 9 Beav. 342) An agreement by the client to allow 
 interest on his solicitor's untaxed bills of costs, will not be 
 supported in the absence of independent professional ad- 
 vice, or correct information from the solicitor as to the 
 law {Lydden v. Moss, 4: De G. 8f J. 104). 
 
 i. Solici- 
 tor's lien 
 on his 
 client's 
 papers : — 
 Nature of 
 lien. 
 
 Extent of 
 the lien. 
 
 3. — Solicitor's Lien and Charge under 23 §■ 24 Vict. c. 127. 
 
 A solicitor has a lien on the papers of his client in his 
 hands for the amount of his costs. This lien is a passive 
 one, and merely enables the solicitor to withhold the papers 
 from his client (Blunden v. Desart, 2 Dr. §• W. 405 ; 
 Stedman v. Webb, 4 My. Sf C. 346 ; Bozon v. Bolland, 
 ibid. 354) ; and cannot be enforced by a bill in equity 
 ( Stedman v. Webb, loc. cit. ; Molesworth v. Bobbins, 2 J. 
 §• L. 358). It extends, however, to the papers themselves 
 only, and does not give the solicitor any right against a 
 fund which may have been recovered by means of any of 
 the documents {Stedman v. Webb, loc. cit. ; Bozon y. Bol- 
 land, loc. cit. ; overruling Worrall v. Johnson, 2 J. 8f W. 
 214). It is a general lien, and operates as a security not 
 merely for the costs incurred in the particular suit or 
 matter to which the papers relate, but for all the costs 
 due or to become due from the client (Bozon v. Bolland, 
 loc. cit; and see Glutton v. Pardon, T. §• R. 301, 304). 
 
 The lien extends to papers deposited with the solicitor 
 for a particular purpose, if he received them in his profes- 
 sional character and they are allowed to remain with him 
 
BY SOLICITOR FROM CLIENT. 391 
 
 {Ex parte Neshitt, 2 Sch. §• i. 279 ; Ex parte Sterling ; 16 
 Ves. 257 ; Ex parte Pemherton, 18 Ves. 282 ; Re Leah, 
 6 Jur. n. s. 687 ; and see Stevenson v. Blakelocli, 1 31. §• S. 
 535) ; but not to papers delivered to a solicitor as steward 
 of a manor ( Champernoion v. Scott, 6 Mad. 93) ; or as 
 mortgagee {Felly v. Wathen, 7 Ha. 351 ; Vaughan v. 
 Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 409, 412); or as next friend 
 (Beames, 327) ; and not to the original will of the client 
 {Georges v. Georges, 18 Fes. 294 ; Balch v. Symes, T. Sf 
 R. 92 ; Redfearn \. Sowerby, 1 Swans. 84) ; nor to a deed 
 executed by the client in the solicitor's favour, reserving 
 a life interest and power of revocation to the client {Balch 
 V. Symes, loe. cit); nor to a document deposited on an 
 express contract {Gibson v. May, 4 De G. M. §• G. 512). 
 The solicitor of an infant* plaintiff's next friend has no lien 
 on title-deeds to an estate deposited in court, where the 
 plaintiff on coming of age repudiates the suit, although the 
 defendant has admitted the plaintiff's title to the estate 
 {Dunn V. Dunn, 7 De G. M. Sj- G. 25, qfg. s. c. 3 Drew. 
 17). Solicitors have a Hen on a settlement against the 
 trustees of it for the costs of preparing it {Re Gregson, 26 
 Beav. 87). The lien extends not only to papers but to 
 other articles, such as books delivered to the solicitor for 
 the purpose of being shown to witnesses {Frisioell v. King, 
 15 Sim. 191). And the lien is not destroyed by the cha- 
 racter of the document being changed, as by an engross- 
 ment becoming a deed by execution, if the holder has 
 agreed to hold it subject to the lien ( Watson v. Lyon, 7 
 De G. M. §■ G. 288). 
 
 But if the documents are deposited with the solicitor Papers 
 for the purpose of being used in a particular suit only, and ^^j^^^^^*^ 
 he has no lien on them for prior costs, he cannot resist solicitor 
 their production in the suit {Baker v. Henderson, 4 Sim. purpose of 
 27; Belly. Taylor, 9, Sim. 216); secus where the papers being used 
 were in the solicitor's hands for other purposes as well, particular 
 and he clainied a lien for the costs of the suit and other ^"''' 
 costs ( Warburton v. Edge, 9 Sim. 508). Where the car- 
 
392 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Lien 
 may te 
 
 but new 
 solicitor 
 paying off 
 former 
 acquires 
 no lien. 
 
 Lien does 
 not extend 
 beyond 
 client's 
 interest. 
 As against 
 incum- 
 brancers. 
 
 As between 
 mort- 
 gagee's 
 solicitor 
 and mort- 
 gagor; 
 
 or mort- 
 gagor's 
 solicitor 
 and mort- 
 
 riage of a creditor's suit was taken from the plaintiff and 
 given to another creditor, the plaintiff's solicitor could not 
 withhold production of the papers for the purpose of the 
 suit, but the order was made without prejudice to his lien 
 {Bennett v. Baxter, 10 Sim. 417). Production by the 
 client may be ordered though his solicitor claims a lien 
 (Rodick V. Gandell, 10 Beav. 270, where the order was 
 made with liberty to apply in case of difficulty). 
 
 A solicitor may assign the costs due to him and transfer 
 his lien on the papers to his assignee {Bull v. Faulkner, 
 2 De G. §• S. 772). But a solicitor redeeming his cKent's 
 papers by payment of the amount claimed by a former 
 solicitor, does not acquire a lien against his client for the 
 amount so paid {Ghristian v. Field, 2 Ha. 177 ; but see 
 Gibson V. May, 4 De G. M. §• G. 512, 517). 
 
 The client, however, cannot give the solicitor a lien on 
 the deeds more extensive than he could give on the estate 
 to which the deeds relate {Felly v. Wathen, 7 Ha. 351, 
 s. c. affd. 1 De G. M.^G.IQ). Therefore the lien is sub- 
 ject to the rights of prior incumbrancers on the chent's 
 interest, whether legal or equitable {ibid. ; Molesworth v. 
 Bobbins, 2 J. 8f L. 358), including judgments from the date 
 of their being entered up {Blunden v. Desart, 2 Dr. Sf 
 Wt 405). An existing lien, though good for costs already 
 due, will not prevail for future costs against a purchaser 
 or incumbrancer {ibid). So, the mortgagee's solicitor can- 
 not acquire as against the mortgagor any lien on the deeds 
 relating to the mortgaged property for an amount ex- 
 ceeding the sum due to the mortgagee {Blunden v. 
 Desart, he. cit. ; Rider v. Jones, 2 Y. §• C. C. C. 328; 
 Lawson V. Dickenson, 12 Mod. 306 ; and see Ogle v. 
 Story, 4: B. Sf Ad. 737). On the other hand, the mort- 
 gagor's solicitor can acquire no lien on deeds relating 
 to the mortgaged property allowed to remain in his hands, 
 as against the mortgagee ( Smith v. Chichester, 2 Dr. 8f W. 
 393) ; but where the mortgagee lent the deeds to the mort- 
 gagor, who, with the former's acquiescence, placed them 
 
BY SOLICITOR FROM CLIENT. 393 
 
 in his solicitor's hands for a particular purpose, the solicitor 
 
 acquired a lien for the costs of that particular transaction 
 
 {Young v. English, 7 Beav. 10). Again, the solicitor for or solicitor 
 
 the tenant for life acquired no lien upon the trust deed, °qu7-tlmt 
 
 which had been lent by the trustee to the tenant for life ""d 
 
 (iZe Mayheic,"! TV. R. 351). And where money had been 
 
 lent on mortgage in breach of trust, it was held that the goj'eJtOT "^ ^ 
 
 right of the cestuis-que-trust to follow the fund prevailed and ccstui- 
 
 over the lien of the trustees' solicitor on the mortgage deed 
 
 {Francis v. Francis, 5 De G. M. §• G. 108); if there had 
 
 been a surplus after replacing the fund, the lien would have 
 
 attached {ibid.). The solicitor of a trustee or executor has 
 
 a lien on the papers relating to the trust, but only to the 
 
 extent of his client's lien on the trust funds or estate 
 
 ( Turner v. Letts, 7 De G. M. §• G. 243, overruling on this 
 
 point s. c. 20 Beav. 185, 192 ; but see Home v. Shepherd, 
 
 3 Jur. n. s. 806). 
 
 The solicitor's lien is good against his client's assignees As against 
 
 in bankruptcy {Ex parte Underwood \ De G. 190; Boss ^„'j,^t-^ 
 
 V. Laughton, 1 V. lS" B. 349); except as to papers mptcy; 
 
 delivered after the bankruptcy {Ex parte Lee, 2 Ves. 
 
 Junr. 285). In Potter's case, 1 De G. 8f S. 728, it or official 
 
 was held that the lien of the late soHcitors to a com- ^;n"dine^™ 
 
 pany being wound up, entitled them to withhold papers up; 
 
 notwithstanding that an order for delivery to the official 
 
 manager had been made under the 63rd sec. of the 
 
 Winding-up Act, 1848 ; see now ' the Companies' Act, 
 
 1862 ' (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89, s. 100). As against a de- ordeceased 
 
 ceased client's executors, the lien of course prevails ; and '^^^^'^^^ 
 
 ^ ^ ^ ^ ' executors. 
 
 it has been held that where a solicitor delivered up papers 
 to an executor, which were of great use in several suits 
 then pending, such delivery up was sufficient consideration 
 to make the executor personally liable for the solicitor's 
 whole demand, whether there were or were not assets {Duke 
 of Hamilton v. Incledon, 4 Bro. P. C. 4). 
 
 A solicitor cannot refuse on account of his lien to pro- ^ Bohcitor 
 
 . ^ cannot 
 
 duce a document, when called as a witness on behalf of refuse 
 
394 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 production strangers ; see ante, p. 30, and to the cases there cited add 
 s wi ness. j^^ CamerojCs Coalbrook Sfc. Cormpany, 25 Beav. 1. 
 Where In Richards v. Plater, Cr. iSf Ph. 79, it was said that 
 
 disdiarges ^^ ^i^^ ^^ equivalent to a ' special contract,' and the 
 Bolicitor. solicitor was entitled to insist on it though money was 
 brought into court, but in order to prevent property being 
 lost, the Court would make an order which should not pre- 
 judice the lien. If the client discharges the solicitor in 
 the course of the suit, he is not bound to give the client 
 any facilities for prosecuting the suit {Bozon v. Bolland, 
 4 My. ^ a 354; Griffiths v. Griffiths, 2 Ha. 587); and 
 no order will be made for the production of any of the 
 papers to the new solicitor, without discharging the former 
 solicitor's lien {Lord v. Wormleighton, Jac. 580 ; but see 
 Ross V. Laughton, 1 V. Sf B. 349). So if the solicitor 
 dies, his personal representative is entitled to insist upon 
 the lien {Red/earn v. Sowerhy, 1 Swans. 84). But the 
 former solicitor cannot stay proceedings in the suit till his 
 costs are paid (TlierewefAer V. Mellish, 13 Ves. 161 ; O'JDea 
 V. Qi'Dea, 1 Sch. §• L. 315), If, however, the former 
 solicitor omits to deliver his bill within a month under the 
 common order, the client may obtain the same order for 
 delivery of the necessary papers, &c., as if the solicitor 
 had discharged himself ( Cooper v. Hewson, 2 K §• C. 
 C. C. 515). The lien of the former solicitor, however, 
 will not entitle him to intercept the completion of an order 
 which has been passed but not entered {Clifford v. Tur- 
 vill, 2 De G. 8f S. I, where he was ordered to attend with 
 it for the purpose of its being entered, the new solicitor 
 paying his expenses) ; or to withhold a decree, when 
 wanted for the purpose of correcting a clerical error in it 
 {Bird V. Heath, 6 Ha. 236). An order to change 
 solicitors is prima facie a discharge by the client ( Webster 
 V. Le Hunt, 9 W. R. 804). 
 Where the If the solicitor discharges himself pendente lite, an 
 discharges °^^^^' ™^^ ^^ obtained, not merely for production and 
 himself. inspection (as was held in Commerell v. Poynton, 1 
 
BY SOLICITOR FROM CLIENT. 395 
 
 Swans. 1 ; Mayne v. Haiokey, 3 Swans. 9 ; Moir v. 
 Mudie, \ S. ^ S. 282, which are overruled) ; but that the 
 former solicitor deliver up to the new solicitor the 
 necessary papers, without prejudice to the lien, the latter 
 undertaking to return them within ten days after the 
 hearing {Heslop v. Metcalfe, 3 My. ^ C. 183 ; and see 
 Colegrave v. Manley, T. §- B,. 400; Wilson Y.Emmet, 19 
 Beav. 233 ; Webster v. Le Hunt, 9 W. R. 804). In Cane 
 V. Martin, 2 Beav. 584, the words ' or after he shall at 
 any time cease or decline diligently to prosecute the 
 suit' were added to the new solicitor's undertaking. 
 ^Yhere there was no suit pending an order was made that 
 papers relating to any business actually in progress be 
 lent to the new solicitor for that particular business, and 
 then returned (^Rawlinson v. Moss, 7 Jur. n. s. 1053). 
 If a schedule is required, the parties who ask for it must 
 bear the expenses of it (ibid.'). 
 
 A sohcitor in custody for debt, and therefore incapable what is a 
 of practising (under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, s. 31), is considered ^/^^^^^ 
 as havinff discharged himself (Re Williams, 28 Beav. solicitor by 
 465). But if a client's conduct renders it impossible for ™^'' 
 the solicitor to conduct his business any longer, it will be 
 considered the client's discharge {Steele v. Scott, 2 Hog. 
 141). A dissolution of partnership is a discharge of the Effect on 
 client by the solicitors (Cholmondeley y. Clinton, 19 Ves. ^^j™°i^tio„ 
 273; Griffiths Y. Griffiths, 2 Ha. 587; Scott v. Fleming, ofpartner- 
 9 Jur. 1085 ; Rawlinson v. Moss, 7 Jur. n. s. 1053). In "®'^^, '^' 
 
 ~r^ ^ -x-r-r. •. n ■. "i" altcra- 
 
 Pelly Y. Wathen, 7 Ha. 351, 362, V. C. Wigram held tions in a 
 that the lien once acquired was not affected by other ^™- 
 partners being taken in, but that deeds which first came 
 into the possession of the joint firm would not be subject 
 to a Hen for costs due to some of the members before the 
 constitution of the firm ; and see as to the latter point In 
 re Forshaw, 16 Sim. 121. A solicitor has no lien on 
 papers which come into his possession for a bill of costs 
 due to a firm of which he was formerly a member 
 {Vaughan v. Vanderstegen, 2 Drew. 409, 412). 
 
396 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PAYMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Lien 
 
 superseded 
 by taking 
 eeenrity. 
 
 Lien of the 
 
 town 
 
 agent. 
 
 ii. Solici- 
 tor's lien 
 on funds 
 recovered 
 in the suit. 
 
 The lien is superseded by the solicitor taking security 
 for the amount of his bill (^Cowell v. Simpson, 16 Ves. 
 275 *) ; but only to the extent covered by the security 
 {Balch V. Symes, T. §• iZ. 92 ; Watson v. Lyon, 7 De G. 
 M. §• G. 288). 
 
 The town agent has a lien on the client's papers for the 
 amount due to him from the country solicitor^ but only to 
 the extent of the amount due to the latter from the 
 client {Ward v. Hepple, 15 Ves. 296 ; Ex parte Steele, 16 
 Ves. 164 ; Anon. 2 Dick. 802 ; Bray v. Hine, 6 Pr. 203 ; 
 and see Farewell v. Coher, 2 P. W. 460). If the client 
 pays the country solicitor without notice of the town 
 agent's claim, the lien of the latter is gone, and it is im- 
 material how the accounts between the client and country 
 solicitor are settled, whether by set-off or otherwise 
 {Waller v. Holmes, I J. Sf H. 239). If the town agent 
 gives the client notice not to settle with the country 
 solicitor, the client paying the country solicitor will be- 
 come liable to the town agent {ibid.). And in Bray v. 
 Hine, loc. cit., the assignees in bankruptcy of the country 
 solicitor were restrained from proceeding against the 
 client to recover the amount paid by him to the town 
 agent. 
 
 The solicitor has also a lien on any funds or sum of 
 money recovered for, or which become payable to his 
 client in the suit {Anon. 42 Ves. 25) ; but not on real 
 estate recovered by him for his client ( Shaw v. Neale, 6 
 Ho. Lds. Ca. 581, affirming s. c. 20 Beav. 163, and over- 
 ruling Barnsley v. Powell, Amb. 102). This lien, unlike 
 that on the papers, may be actively enforced by obtaining 
 a stop order on the funds, if in court {Lucas v. Peacock, 
 9 Beav. 177 ; Hobson v. Shearwood, 8 Beav. 487 ; 
 Hughes v. Rogers, ibid. n. ; and see Verity v. Wylde, 4 
 Drew. 427), or by a suit in equity {Sympson v. Prothero, 
 5 W. R. 814), but extends only to the costs of the 
 
 * This case was questioned at law in Stevenson v. Blakelocjc, 1 M. ^ S. 
 535 ; but see Chase v. Westmore, b M.^ S. 180. 
 
BY SOLICITOR FROM CLIENT. 397 
 
 particular suit (Lann v. Church, 4 Mad. 391 ; Bozon v. 
 Bolland, 4 My. Sf C. 354; Hall v. Laver, 1 Ha. 571), 
 and to costs incurred by the solicitor in protecting his 
 right to his costs in the suit {Lucas v. Peacock, loc. cit.). 
 
 The lien is allowed on monies ( Sympson v. Pr other o, jj ^,g 
 loc. cit.; Coivelly. Simpson, 16 Ves. 281,282; White y. enforced 
 Pearce, 7 Ha. 276), or costs {£Jx parte Bryant, 1 Mad. ^here 
 49), payable to the client personally. If the money come ™°"ey is 
 to the solicitor's hands he may retain it to the amount of client. 
 his bill {Beames, 316, 317). If the person liable to pay 
 pays the client after notice of the solicitor's claim, he re- 
 mains liable to the solicitor ( W^t^e v. Pearce, loc. cit.). 
 And the solicitor's hen has priority over a Common Law priority of 
 Grarnishee Order obtained after notice to the person liable ^'^'^• 
 {Sympson t. Prothero, loc. cit.) ; or a judgment creditor's 
 rights though he has obtained a charging order before the 
 solicitor {Haymes v. Cooper, 3 N. R. 627, 10 L. T. n. s. 
 87) ; or over bond debts in administration of assets 
 {Turioin v. Gibson, 3 Atk. 719); and is not barred by 
 the Statute of Limitations {Higgins v. Scott, 2 B. 8f Ad. 
 413). 
 
 The solicitor, however, has no lien on funds in court the L;g„ 
 subject of the suit generally, but only on the ultimate confined to 
 balance which may be coming to his client (Ex parte balance 
 Rhodes, 15 Ves. 541 ; Verity v. Wylde,4: Drew. 427, 430), l^f^^J°. 
 and the lien is not allowed to interfere with any right of j^^^ ^pgg 
 set-off which any other party may have against the client ^°*' i°ter- 
 
 A .' .' o leve with a 
 
 (Holworthy v. Mortlock, 1 Cox, 202, 2 Bro. C.C. 17; Taylor set-off, 
 
 V. Popham, 15 Ves. 72 ; Taylor v. Cook, Yo. 201 ; Cattell 
 
 T. Simon, 6 Beav. 306 ; Nicholson v. Norton, 7 Beav. 67 ; 
 
 Bawtree v. Watson, 2 ^.713); nor with any bona Jide arabonci 
 
 compromise or arrangement entered into by the client M^ "?'"- 
 ■^ promise. 
 
 {Brunsdon v. Allard, 5 Jur. n. s. 596 ; Mornington v. 
 
 Wellesley, 4 Jur. n. s. 6 ; but see Ex parte Bryant, 1 
 
 Mad. 49) ; but a voluntary release by the client of his 
 
 debtor will not destroy the lien {Anon. 2 Ves. 25 ; and see 
 
 Fairland v. Enever, 1 Dick. 114). Where a legatee 
 
398 MODES OF ENFORCING THE PATMENT OF COSTS. 
 
 Solicitor 
 may have 
 a lien 
 though not 
 retained. 
 
 Lien not 
 discharged 
 by taking 
 client in 
 execution. 
 
 Effect of 
 discharge 
 or retire- 
 ment of 
 solicitor 
 on lien. 
 
 appeared to be indebted to the estate to an amount 
 greater than her share, payment of her costs was, after 
 decree, ordered to be stayed for a month (^Nicholson v. 
 Norton, loc. cit.). In Hanson v. Beece, 3 Jicr. n. s. 1204, 
 the solicitor of one of the parties was allowed a lien on 
 a fund placed in his hands by arrangement to abide the 
 result of the litigation. 
 
 On the principle that it is inequitable for a party to 
 take the benefit of a suit without bearing the expenses of 
 it, a solicitor may have a lien for his costs on a fund 
 recovered, though he acts officiously without a retainer 
 {Hale V. Laver, 1 Ha. 571 ; Burge v. Brutton, 2 Ha. 373). 
 
 A solicitor does not lose his lien on the funds by taking 
 his client in execution under an attachment {Davies v. 
 Bush, Yo. 358 ; Bawtree v. Watson, 2 J^T. 713 ; Lloyd v. 
 Mason, 4 Ha. 132); or under a ea. sa. {O'Brien v. 
 Lewis, 2 N. R. 536, 11 tF. R. 973 affg. s. c, 2 N. R. 
 156); notwithstanding the Statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, 
 s. 16 {Lloyd V. Mason, loc. cit.). But the lien will not 
 extend to the costs of the attachment {Davies v. Bush, 
 loc. cit.), and the satisfaction of the lien will discharge the 
 attachment pro tanto {ibid.). 
 
 A solicitor refusing to act any longer for his client has 
 no lien on the funds recovered ( Cressioell v. Byron, 14 
 Ves. 271). But he does not altogether lose his lien if he 
 is discharged by the client, or retires by arrangement 
 {Cormach v. Beisley, 3 De G. §■ J. 157); although he is 
 changed in consequence of his becoming embarrassed, if 
 there is no proof of misconduct {Re Smith, 9 W. R. 396) ; 
 but as between the discharged or retiring solicitor and the 
 substituted one, it seems that the latter has the priority 
 of lien (CorraacA v. Beisley, loc. cit. ; and see V.C. Wood's 
 judgment, 3 De G. 8f J. 162). Where a party had changed 
 his solicitor three times, it was held that the lien of the 
 former ones did not prevent the then present ones from 
 accepting a gross sum for their client's costs {Mornington 
 V. Wellesley, 4 Jur. n. s. 6). Where a firm of solicitors 
 
BY SOLICITOR FROM CLIENT. 399 ' 
 
 had ceased to act for certain parties, though they remained 
 the solicitors on the record, and the fund had been dis- 
 tributed without providing for their costs, they obtained 
 on petition an order for the payment of them by the 
 beneficiaries {Armstrong v. Storer, 27 Beav. 471). The 
 substituted solicitor acquires a lien, although an order 
 has already been made for payment of the client's costs, 
 with the costs of taxation, to the former one {In re 
 Barnard, 14 Beav. 18). The solicitor paying the costs of New 
 the discharged one has no lien on the funds recovered for ^°1^?''°'' 
 
 o paying oil 
 
 the amount so paid by him {Irving v. Viana, 2 Y. ^ J. former one 
 70 ; and see ante, p. 392). But the lien may be assigned, fo,. amount 
 and where a notice of the assignment had been given to ^° P^^*^- 
 the plaintifip in the suit and the testator's executors, it was 
 upheld against the solicitor's assignees in bankruptcy 
 {Day V. Day, I De G. 8f J. 144). 
 
 The solicitor does not lose his lien on the funds by the Lien not 
 death of his client {Lloyd y. Mason, 4 Ha. 132; and see ^^l^^7^ 
 ante, p, 393). death. 
 
 The solicitor's rights against property recovered for his Hi. Under 
 client in a suit have been extended by Statute 23 & 24 Ify^^ ^ 
 Vict. c. 127, the 28th section of which is as follows: — 127. 
 
 ' In every such case in which an attorney or solicitor 
 shall be employed to prosecute or defend any suit, 
 matter, or proceeding in any Court of Justice, it shall be 
 lawful for the Court or Judge before whom any such suit, 
 matter, or proceeding has been heard, or shall be depend- 
 ing, to declare such attorney or solicitor entitled to a 
 charge upon the property recovered or preserved, and 
 upon such declaration being made such attorney or 
 solicitor shall have a charge upon, and against, and a 
 right to payment out of the property, of whatsoever 
 nature, tenure, or kind the same may be, which shall have 
 been recovered or preserved through the instrumentality 
 of any such attorney or solicitor, for the taxed costs, 
 charges, and expenses of or in reference to such suit, 
 matter, or proceeding; and it shall be lawful for such 
 
400 MODES or ENFOECING THE PAYMENT OP COSTS. 
 
 Act applies 
 to solicitor 
 of next 
 friend. 
 
 London 
 agent. 
 
 Charge 
 extends 
 only to 
 costs of 
 particular ■ 
 suit, &e. 
 
 Court or Judge to make sucli order or orders for taxation 
 of and for raising and payment of such costs, charges, 
 and expenses out of the said property as to such Court 
 or Judge shall appear just and proper ; and all convey- 
 ances and acts done to defeat, or which shall operate to 
 defeat, such charge or right, shall, unless made to a bona, 
 Jide purchaser for value without notice, be absolutely 
 void and of no effect as against such charge or right : 
 Provided always, that no such order shall be made by any 
 such Court or Judge in any case in which the right to 
 recover payment of such costs, charges, and expenses is 
 barred by any Statute of Limitation.' 
 
 The Court refused to hear an application under this 
 section to charge an estate recovered for an infant plaintiff 
 with the costs of the next friend's solicitor, unless it was 
 substantially opposed on behalf of the infant (Bonser v. 
 Bradshaw, 10 W. R. 481); but after the infant came of 
 age, an order was made (s. c. 4 Giff. 260). The claim of 
 a London agent is within this section to the extent of the 
 balance due from the client to the country solicitor 
 {Tar drew v. Howell, 3 Gijf. 381); although the balance 
 due from the country solicitor to the town agent is un- 
 ascertained {ibid.y 
 
 The charge under the Act extends only to costs in the 
 particular matter or suit {Ex parte Thompson, 3 L. T. 
 n. s. 217). "Where a solicitor had conducted a foreclosure 
 suit and other legal proceedings to enforce his client's 
 rights as mortgagee, and after his client's death the pro- 
 perty was ordered to be sold in a creditor's suit, on 
 petition in the foreclosure suit the solicitor was allowed a 
 charge on the property, but for the costs of the fore- 
 closure suit only, in priority, however, to any rights 
 under the decree in the creditor's suit ( Wilson v. Round, 
 12 W. R. 402, 3 N. R. 288). 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 GENEEAL OEDEES AND EEGULATIONS 
 EELATING TO COSTS IN CHANCEEY.* 
 
 REGULATIONS AS TO SPECIAL EXAMINEES' FEES AND 
 CHARGES, SOLICITORS' FEES AND CHARGES, COURT 
 FEES, AND CHARGES FOR COPIES.* 
 
 I. REGTILATIOlf AS TO SPECIAL EsAMDrERS' FeES AND ChAEGES. 
 
 An Examiner specially appointed by the Court shall, for the per- 
 formance of his duty, he entitled to receive the sums of money set 
 forth in the First Schedule hereto. (8th May 1845; Ord. 110, and 
 see Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 31.) t 
 
 n. Regulations as to Soliciioes' Fees and Charges. 
 
 (See 2nd Rule of Order XXXVIH.) 
 
 1. Solicitors shall be entitled to charge and be allowed the fees set o( Solicitors' 
 forth in the column headed ' Lower Scale ' in the Second Schedule fees. 
 hereto, in the several cases following, unless the Com't shall make 
 order to the contrary ; that is to say, J 
 
 1st. In all suits by creditors, legatees (whether specific, pecu- 
 niary, or residuary), devisees (whether in trust or otherwise), 
 heirs at law or next of kin, in which the personal or real, or 
 personal and real estate, for or against or in respect of which, or 
 for an account or administration of which, the demand may be 
 made, § shall be under the amount or value of 1,000^. || 
 
 2n(ily. In all suits for the execution of trusts in which the 
 trust estate or fund shall be under the amoimt or value of 1,000/. 
 3rdly. In all suits for foreclosure or redemption, or for enfor- 
 cing any charge or lien, in which the mortgage whereon the suit 
 is founded, or the charge or Hen sought to be enforced, shall be 
 under the amount or value of 1,000^ 
 
 * The portions of the Consolidated Orders which relate to or bear upon the subject- 
 matter of this treatise are given in the body of the work. 
 
 t As to expenses to be allowed to an Examiner of the Court when acting under order 
 made under the 12th rule of the Order of 5th February, 1861, see post, p. 404. 
 
 t The principle of these rules is not affected by the circumstance that Court fees have 
 been paid on the oertiflcate of the plaintiffs soUoitor during the progress of the suit on 
 the Lower Scale, (floctton v. Peake,iN.R. 456, 12 W.R. WIZ.) 
 
 § The Court looks to the thing in dispute, not to the amount recovered. (Per V.C. 
 Wood, Flocktm v. Peake, 4 N.R. 456, 12 W.R. 1026.) 
 
 II Where an estate amounted to more than £1,000, but by payments made to the resi- 
 duary legatee was reduced below that amount before the suit commenced, it was held 
 that the Lower Scale applied. (Judd v. Plum, 29 Btav. 21.) 
 
 D D 
 
402 
 
 REGULATIONS AS TO COURT FEES. 
 
 Higher Scale 
 of Solicitors' 
 fees. 
 
 Other fees. 
 
 4t]ily. In all suits for specific performance, ia wMch tlie pur- 
 chase money or consideration shall be under the amount or value 
 of 1,000/. 
 
 5thly. In all proceedings under the Trustees Relief Acts, or 
 under the Trustee Acts, or under any of sach Acts, in which the 
 trust estate or fund to which the proceeding relate shall be 
 under the amount or value of 3,000/. 
 
 6thly. In all proceedings relating to the guardianship or main- 
 tenance of infants, in which the property of the infant shall be 
 under the amount or value of 1,000/. 
 
 7thly. In all proceedings by special case, and in all proceedings 
 relating to funds carried to separate accounts, and in all proceed- 
 ings imder any railway or private Act of Parliament, or under 
 any other statutory or summary jurisdiction, and generally in all 
 other cases* where the estate or fund to be dealt with,t shall he 
 tinder the amount or value of 1,000/. J (30th Jan. 1857 ; Ord. 2.) 
 
 2. In all other cases solicitors shall be entitled to charge and be 
 allowed the fees .set forth in the column headed 'Higher Scale' in the 
 Second Schedule hereto, unless the Court shall make order to the 
 contrary as to all or any of the parties. (30th Jan. 1857 ; Ord. 8.) 
 
 3. Solicitors shall also be entitled to charge and be allowed the 
 fees set forth m the Third Schedule hereto. (30th Jan. 1857; Ord. 1.) 
 
 Eule for 
 determining 
 whether 
 Court fees 
 are to be 
 paid accord- 
 ing to the 
 Lower or 
 the Higher 
 Scale. 
 
 Certificate 
 for Lower 
 Scale. 
 
 Effect 
 thereof. 
 
 III. — EeGTTLATIONS as 10 OOTJET Fees.§ 
 (See 2nd and 8rd Rules of Order XXXIX.) 
 
 1. The fees of Court shall be those set forth in the Fourth Schedule 
 hereto. (30th Jan. 1857 ; Ord. 4.) 
 
 2. The fees set forth in the column headed ' Lower Scale ' in the 
 Fourth Schedule hereto shall be paid in all cases in which the Lower 
 Scale of fees is to be charged by and allowed to solicitors, under the 
 provisions of these regulations ; and the fees of Court set forth ia 
 the column headed 'Higher Scale' in the Fom'th Schedule hereto 
 shaU be paid in all other cases. (30th Jan. 1857 ; Ord. 4). 
 
 3. The solicitor or party instituting any proceeding in respect of 
 which he claims to pay the fees of Court according to the Lower 
 Scale, shall file with the Clerk of Records and Writs a certificate in 
 the form hereunder set forth, of which certificate the Clerk of 
 Records and Writs shall, at the request of any solicitor or any party 
 acting in person in the suit or matter, mark a copy. (30th Jan. 1857; 
 Ord. 4.) 
 
 4. On production of such copy of the certificate, the ofiicers of 
 
 * Interpleader suits are within the rule. (CHbbs v. Gibbs, 6 W.Ji. 415.) 
 
 As to whether a Bill seeking to reopen an account on the ground of fraud is within 
 the order, see Flockton v. Peake, ante.. 
 
 t Where the suit, in addition to the recovery of money, sought other relief, such as the 
 appointment of new trustees or the winding up of a benefit building society, it was held 
 that although only £800 was recovered, the costs were properly taxed on the Higher 
 Scale (.Grimes v. Harrison (No. 2), 27 Brnv. 198). See too Reade v. Seniley, 'i K, iS: J. 
 271, where the bill prayed an injunction to restrain the infiingement of copyright; 
 and V.O. Wood held that although the value of the property in dispute was certified to 
 be under £1,000, the Higher Scale applied, observing that the case was not one of those 
 specified by the order as subjects of the Lower Scale. 
 
 t Court fees are to be collected by stamps (?rd rule of 39a Consolidated Order). See 
 fith and 6th rules of the some Order as to the use and defacing of stamps. 
 
 § Where costs are directed to be paid out of a fund in court, the fees of taxation are not 
 to be payable by means of stamps, but are to be carried over by the Acoountant-Gcneral 
 to the credit of the Suitors' Eee Fund ; and to that intent the Taxing Master is in such 
 cases to certify the amount of such fees. (Cons. Ord. 39 r. 8.) 
 
EEG-ULATIONS AS TO CHAKGES FOR COPIES. 
 
 403 
 
 tie Coiu-t shall receive and file all proceedings in the suit or matter 
 bearing stamps according to the Lower Scale. (30th Jan. 1857; Ord. 4.) 
 
 5. In any case certified for the Lower Scale of Court fees in which it 
 shall happen that the solicitor shall become entitled to chai'ge and be 
 allowed according to the Higher Scale of solicitors' fees, the deficiencies 
 in the fees of Court shall be made good. (30th Jan. 1857; Ord. 4.)- 
 
 6. In any case in which the fees of Court have been paid upon 
 the Higher Scale, and in which it shall happen that the solicitor 
 shall become entitled to charge and be allowed only according to 
 the Lower Scale of solicitors' fees, the excess of fees of Court so 
 paid may be allowed upon the taxation of costs, if the circumstances 
 of the case shall, in the judgment of the Taxing Master, justify such 
 allowance. (30th Jan. 1857 ; Ord. 4.) 
 
 7. The stamps for denoting the payment of fees of Com't shall be 
 of the amounts set forth in the Fifth Schedule hereto. 
 
 Foitn of Certificate for paying the Lower Scale of Court Fees. 
 (Title of Cause or Matter). 
 I hereby certify, that to the best of my judgment and belief, the 
 Lower Scale of fees of Com-t is applicable to this case. Dated, &c. 
 
 A.B. 
 
 Solicitor for . 
 
 Deficiency of 
 Court fees, 
 where Soli- 
 citor entitled 
 to Higher 
 Scale. 
 
 of 
 
 Court fees 
 where Soli- 
 citor entitled 
 to Lower 
 Scale only. 
 
 Stamps. 
 
 IV.- 
 
 -Re&toaiions as to Charges ecu Copies dbliyeeed by Parties 
 ASS Solicitors. 
 
 (See 1st Bule of Order XXXVI.) 
 
 1. The charges for all copies delivered by parties or solicitors under 
 the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Rules of the 36th of the Consolidated General 
 Orders shall be at the rate of fourpence per folio, except in the cases 
 next hereinafter mentioned. (25th Oct. 1852 ; Ord. 1, Art. 5.) 
 
 2. The charges for copies of pleadings, and other proceedings and 
 documents delivered under the 3rS, 4th, and 5th Rules of the 36th of 
 the Consolidated General Orders, to a person admitted to sue or defend 
 in forma pauperis, or to bis solicitor, by or on behalf of any other party, 
 shall be at the rate of one penny-halfpenny per folio. Provided always, 
 that if such person shall become entitled to receive divers costs, the 
 charges for such copies shall be at the rate of fourpence per folio ; and 
 nothing shall be allowed in taxation in respect of such charges, until 
 such person or his solicitor shall have paid or tendered to the solicitor or 
 party by whom such copies were delivered, the additional twopence- 
 halfpenny per folio. But this proviso shall not apply to any copy 
 which shall have been delivered by the party himself who is directed 
 to pay the costs, and not by his solicitor. (1st June 1854 ; Ord. 9). 
 
 3. The charges for copies delivered by a person admitted to sue or de- 
 fend in forma pauperis, other than those delivered by his solicitor, shall 
 be at the rate of one penny-halfpenny per folio. (1st June 1854; Ord. 10). 
 
 4. All office copies and other copies of pleadings, proceedings, and 
 documents in the Court of Chancery shall (except in the case of 
 transcripts of accounts made in the office of the Accountant-General) 
 be counted and charged for after the rate of seventy-two words per 
 folio ; and where such copies or any portion thereof shall comprise 
 columns containing figures, each figure shall be counted and charged 
 
 or as one word. (21st Jime 1854; Ord. 1). 
 
 D D 2 
 
 General rule. 
 
 Chai'ges for 
 copies of 
 pleadings, 
 proceedings, 
 and docu- 
 ments, 
 furnished to 
 a person 
 suing or de- 
 fending 
 inforind 
 }'>a tiperis. 
 Charges for 
 the same 
 when fur- 
 nished by 
 such person. 
 
 Mode of 
 reckoning 
 length of 
 copies. 
 
404 SPECIAL examinees' FEES AND CHARGES. 
 
 THE FIRST SCHEDULE. 
 
 SPECIAL examinees' FEES AND CHARGES. 
 
 (8tli May 1845 ; Ord. 110. Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 31.) 
 
 For every day in whioli he is necessarily, and without any 
 default of his owB, detained in the performance of his 
 duty, as special examiner, for his expenses the sum of 2 2 
 
 For every day in which he is bond fide employed in the 
 
 examination of witnesses, the further sum of . .330 
 
 For every mile he travels from his place of residence to 
 the place of examination, and from place to place where 
 the examination is adjourned, and from the place where 
 he last acts in the examination of witnesses, to his place 
 of residence, the sum of 16 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 . d. * s. d. 
 
 THE SECOND SCHEDULE. 
 
 FEES AND CHARGES TO BE ALLOWED TO SOLICITORS. 
 (30th January 1857.) 
 
 rfrSTEtrCTIONS. 
 
 For claims, original summons in chambers, special cases, 
 
 answers, examinations, demurrers, pleas, and exceptions 
 
 For bills 
 
 For amended or supplemental bill . * . . 
 
 For brief on moving for injunction .... 
 
 For interrogatories for examination of parties or witnesses 
 For special petitions ....... 
 
 For special affidavits 
 
 For brief in a suit by bUl, on cause coming on for hearing, 
 
 to be charged on service of notice of motion for a 
 
 decree or on service of subpoena to hear judgment 
 For brief on claim, to include all observations 
 
 For ditto to move for leave to file 
 
 To defend proceedings commenced by bill, claim, special 
 
 case, petition, or original summons .... 
 For instructions for order to revive or add parties . 
 
 As to bills and answers, examinations, affidavits, and petitions, when the larger 
 scale is applicable, in lieu of the fixed fees for instructions for and for draw- 
 ing, the Taxing Master is to be at liberty to take into his consideration 
 the special circumstances of each case, and at his discretion to make such 
 allowances for work, labour, and expenses properly performed and incurred 
 in or about the preparation of the bill or answer, examination, affidavit, or 
 petition, as shall appear to him to be just, having regard to the length of 
 the document, the nature of the suit, the interests of the parties, and the 
 fund or person from which or by whom the costs are to be paid. 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
FEES AND CHARGES TO BE ALLOWED TO SOLICITORS. 405 
 THE PREPARATION OP PLEADINGS AND OTHER DOCIJMENIS. 
 
 (The Chancery folio to be 72 words and the sheet 10 folios.) 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 For drawing bOls, special cases, answers, pleas, demurrers, 
 exceptions, interrogatories, petitions, and affidavits, per 
 
 folio 010 010 
 
 For engrossing on parchment, per foHo . . . .006 G 
 
 For ditto on paper 004 004 
 
 For drawing statements and other documents for the 
 Judge's or Master's chambers, when required, in- 
 cluding the fair copy thereof to leave in chambers .008 
 For the like drawing when the larger scale is applicable 10 
 
 For fair copy thereof to be left in chambers ... 004 
 
 For drawing all advertisements to be signed by the 
 Master or Judge's clerk, including the attendance 
 
 thereon_ 068 13 4 
 
 For drawing request to the Accountant-General to lay 
 
 out cash 026 026 
 
 For ditto for every carrying over of cash or stock . .026 026 
 For drawing caveat against signing or inrolHng any decree 
 
 or order 026 026 
 
 For drawing special notice of motion . . . .020 050 
 
 Or per folio 010 010 
 
 For drawing a claim 110 220 
 
 For ditto at the Master's discretion .... 330 
 
 For drawing such observations for counsel to accompany 
 brief (except on claims) as may be necessary and 
 
 proper, per sheet 6 8 
 
 For drawing the brief on further consideration, per sheet 6 8 6 8 
 For preparing and filing replication . . . .068 10 
 
 For drawing statement on which cotmsel to move for 
 
 order to revive or add parties, and copy . . .068 10 
 Or, according to circumstances, at per sheet ... 068 
 
 For drawing petition to revive, at per foUo . . .010 010 
 For drawing and copying certificate to appoint guardians 
 
 ad litem . . .068 008 
 
 For amending each copy of a bill or claim to serve, where 
 
 norepi-int 6 8 13 4 
 
 For amending each brief biU, or claim, where no reprint 6 8 13 4 
 For preparing an original summons for the purpose of 
 
 proceedings originating in chambers . . . . 13 4 110 
 For indorsing an original summons and the copies under 
 the 8th Rule of the 35th of the Consolidated General 
 
 Orders, and attending to get the same sealed . .068 068 
 For preparing every other summons, and attending to get 
 
 same filled up and sealed at chambers . . . .068 068 
 
 If special, not to exceed 11.0 
 
 For drawing biUs of costs, including the copy for the 
 
 Master's office, per folio 008 008 
 
 For certifying proceeding under lower scale of court fees 5 
 
 The fee for dravring a document in all cases includes a copy, if required, for 
 the use of the solicitor or client, or for the settlement of counsel. 
 
406 FEES AND CHARGES TO BE ALLOWED TO SOLICITOUS. 
 
 PERUSALS. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 £ s. d. & s. d. 
 
 For perusing the print of a bill by the defendant's solicitor 110 110 
 
 If exceeding 60 folios, at per folio . . . . . 4 
 
 For perusing the print of an amended bUl . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 If amendments exceeding 40 folios, at per folio_ . _ . 4 
 
 For perusing an amended bUl, when amended in -writing .068 068 
 
 If amendments exceeding 20 folios, at per folio . . 4 
 
 For perusing an answer 068 13 4 
 
 If exceeding 40 folios, at per folio 4 
 
 For perusing an examination, at per folio . . .004 004 
 For perusing ail special aifidavits filed by an opposing 
 
 party, at per folio, . . . . . . .004 004 
 
 For perusing copy supplemental statement, under 15 & 16 
 
 Vict. c. 86, s. 53 6 8 13 4 
 
 For perusing copy order to reviye 6 8 13 4 
 
 The fees for perusal are not to apply where the same solicitor is for both 
 parties. 
 
 COPIES. 
 
 Subject to the foregoing regulations as to charges for 
 
 copies, copies of all documents are to be at the rate of 
 
 per folio 004 004 
 
 Or per sheet of 10 folios, at 034 034 
 
 Having regard to the preceding fees for perusal, the fee for ' abbreviating ' 
 is to cease, and no close copies are now to be allowed as of course, but the 
 allowance is to depend on the propriety of making the copy, which in 
 each case is to be shown and considered. 
 
 For examining and correcting a proof, at per folio . .002 002 
 For each copy of a Judge's summons, to leave in chambers 
 
 or to serve 020 020 
 
 For each copy of a notice of motion, order, or certificate 
 
 to serve 010 010 
 
 Or at per folio 4 
 
 ATTENDANCES. 
 
 For attending on a Master's warrant .... 
 Or, according to circumstances, not to exceed per diem . 2 
 For attending each counsel with his brief, case, or absti-act, 
 
 in a suit or other proceeding in this court . . .0 
 For the like where the fee amounts to 5 guineas 
 "Where it amounts to 20 guineas ..... 
 Where it amounts to 40 guineas or upwards 
 For attending to present special petition and for same 
 
 answered 068 068 
 
 For attending to present petition for order of course, and 
 
 for order 068 13 4 
 
 For attendance on counsel and court on motion of course, 
 
 and for order 068 13 4 
 
 For attending on the day in which a cause or petition 
 
 stands on the paper for hearing 6 8 10 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
Higher Scale. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 FEES AND CHAEaES TO BE ALLOWED TO SOLICITORS. 407 
 
 Lower Scale, 
 £ s. d. 
 
 For attending when ieard 13 4 
 
 Or, according- to circumstances, not to exceed per diem . 
 
 For attending the court on every special motion, each day 6 8 
 
 The like, when heard 13 4 
 
 Or according to circumstances, not to exceed . 
 
 For attending on motion for or to discharge order for 
 
 injunction, or ne exeat, when heard, per diem . . 13 4 
 
 Or according to circumstances, not to exceed . 
 
 For attending to get answer or special affidavit sworn .068 
 
 For attendance on the Registrar for directions to the 
 
 Accoimtant-General to sell or transfer stock . .068 
 
 For attendance on the Accoimtant-General thereon .068 
 
 For attending the Accountant-General with request to lay 
 
 out cash 068 06 
 
 The like to carry over cash or stock to another account in 
 
 his hooks • . .068 06 
 
 For attending Accountant-General to identify a person 
 
 receiving a check . . . . . . .068 06 
 
 For attending the Accountant-General with order to 
 bespeak, and afterwards to procure his directions for 
 payment of money into court, attending at the Bank of 
 England to pay the money, and for attending on the 
 Accountant-General with the receipt, and at the 
 Report Office to bespeak and to procure the Office copy 13 4 
 
 Where the sum paid in shall amount to 100?. . . .110 
 
 And where the same shall amount to 1,000Z. 
 
 And where the same shall amount to 5,000?. . 
 
 For attending the Master on signing Report . . .068 
 
 For attending to file report and certificates at the Report 
 
 Office, and for office copy 6 8 6 
 
 For attending Examiner to procure appointment to 
 
 examine witnesses . . . . . . .068 06 
 
 For attending the examination of witnesses before Exa- 
 miner . . . . . . . . . .068 
 
 Or according to circumstanceg, not to exceed per diem .110 
 
 But if without counsel, the fee may, at the Master's dis- 
 cretion, be increased to 2 2 
 
 For attending to settle, and afterwards to read over the 
 
 ingrossment of an answer or examination . . .068 
 
 If the same exceed 20 folios and iinder 50 folios . . 13 4 
 
 And for each additional 30 folios 6 8 
 
 For attending to insert an advertisement in Gazette .068 
 
 For entering caveat with the Clerks of Records and Writs 6 8 
 
 For attending to procure certificate of a caveat . .068 
 
 For attending Registrar to certify abatement or settle- 
 ment of suit, and to have same so marked in the Cause 
 book 06806 
 
 For attending the printer with a bill or claim to be 
 
 printed 06806 
 
 For attending to get copies of bill, claim or interrogatories, 
 
 marked for service . . . . . . .068 06 
 
 For attending to take instructions to appear and to enter 
 the appearance of one or more defendants not exceeding 
 three 00806 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 S 3 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
6 8 
 
 6 
 
 to 
 
 to 
 
 2 
 
 3 3 
 
 408 FEES AND CHARGES TO BE ALLOWED TO SOLICITOES. 
 
 Lb-W€r Scalp. Higher Scale. 
 £, s. d. £, s. d. 
 
 If exceeding three, for every additional numljer not ex- 
 ceeding three . . . ... . .'.068 068 
 
 Foe attending at chambers to get original siimmops'and 
 
 duplicate examined and sealed . .■ 068 068 
 
 For attending at the Record and Writ Oifice to -file dupli- 
 cate and examine copies, and get same stataped .' .,068 068 
 For attending on a summons or other appuintmeiit, each 
 day, a fee of 6s. 8d., 13s. 4(?., or 11.' Is., according, to. 
 circumstances ; each attendance to be allowed, by the 
 Judge or his chief clerk. Where' ffom the length of 
 the attendance, or from the ' difficulty ' of the case,' the 
 Judge shall think the highest of the above fees an insuf- 
 ficient remuneration for the services performed) or where 
 the preparation of the case or matter^ to lay it before 
 the Judge in Chambers or on a summons," shall have 
 required skill and labour for 'which no fee has been 
 allowed, the Judge may allow such further fee, not 
 exceeding one guinea, or, where. the higher scale is 
 applicable, two guineas, as In hia discretion he may 
 think fit. .And where- the preparation of the case 
 or matter,, to lay it before the Judge in Chambers on a 2 
 summons, shall have required and received from the 
 solicitor such extraordinary skill and labour as mate- 
 rially to conduce to the satisfactory and speedy disposal 
 9f the business, and therefore shall appear to the Judge 
 to deserve tigher remuneration than the ordinary fees, 
 the Judge may allow to the solicitor, by a memorandum 
 in writing expressly made for that pm'pose, and signed 
 by the Judge, specifying distinctly the grounds of such 
 allowance, such fm-ther fee, not exceeding Ten Guineas, 
 »s in his discretion he may think fit, instead of the 
 above further fee of one guinea or two guineas. (Feb. 2, 
 1855). 
 For perusing the afiidavits of claimants coming in under 
 the 38th Rule of the 35th of the Consolidated General 
 Orders, and attending in chambers at the time appointed 
 by the advertisement, where the number of claims do 
 
 not exceed five 10 6 110 
 
 Where the number exceeds five, for every additional 
 
 number, not exceeding five, an additional sum of . 10 6 110 
 
 For attending for every order drawn up by the Chief Clerk, 
 
 and at the Registrar's Ofiice to get same entered . .068 068 
 For attending to enter claim under the 38th Rule of the 
 35th of the Consolidated General Orders, and to file 
 
 aflidavit 068 068 
 
 For the plaintifi" or j)arty having the conduct of the order, 
 attending the Registrar with brief and papers to bespeak 
 
 minutes or order, not being an order of com-se . .068 068 
 For ditto, for preparing list of evidence read (but only 
 
 when required by the Registrar, and certified by him) ' ' ' 
 Or according to length, at per folio .... 
 
 Attending to settle the dralt or minutes of any decree or 
 
 order 
 
 Or, at the Taxing Master's discretion, not to exceed 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 
 Q 1 
 
 8 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 1 1 
 
 IS 
 3 3 
 
 4 
 
 
FEES AND CHARGES,. TO BE ALLOWED TO SOLICITORS. 409 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale.- 
 ...... , .- , . £ s. d: £ s. d. 
 
 Attenmng to pass any decree or order not being an order 
 
 of course, including the entry thereof . . . .068 13 4 
 
 N.B. — The Registrar will leave the order for entry. 
 
 In case the Registrar shall certify that a special allowance ought to he made 
 in respect of any uni^sual difficulty in settling and passing an order, the 
 Taxing ^Master is to con,sider the sariie, and make such allowance to all or 
 any of the parties as to him shall seem just. 
 
 For attending to procure certificate of pleadings . .068 008 
 For attending to prociire Accountant-Gehei-ar§ certificate 
 
 of fimd in court . . , .• 068 068 
 
 For attending to ohtain consent of next friend to sue in 
 
 his name . . . . . .• . . .068 13 4 
 
 For attending to give consent to take answer without oath, 
 
 to hear cause as short, and for other necessary or proper 
 
 consents of a like nature ...... 
 
 For attending to procure such consents .... 
 
 For procuring certificate of counsel to make cause short, 
 
 and attending Registrar thereon . . ' . ■ . 
 For attendance to mark Master or conveyancing counsel 
 For attendances in consultation 'or in conference with 
 
 counsel . . , . ' . . . . . 
 
 For attending to set down cause or appeal for hearing 
 For attending to leave papers- with Judge's secretary prior 
 
 to hearing ; 
 
 For attending court on appointment of a guardian ad litem 
 For attending to procure transcripts of Accountant- 
 General's Books, when necessary . . . .068 068 
 
 The fees for consent are not to apply where the same solicitor is for both 
 parties. 
 
 WEIIS. 
 
 For every writ of subpoena duces teciun . . . .068 068 
 For a writ or writs of subpcena other than subpoena duces 
 
 tecum, if the number of names therein shall not exceed 
 
 three 068 068 
 
 If exceeding three names, for every additional number not 
 
 exceeding three . . . . . . . .068 068 
 
 For instructions for every writ of fieri facias de bonis 
 
 ecclesiasticis, or writ of sequestrari facias (18th July 
 
 1857, Order 5) . . . . . . ..068 068 
 
 For preparing every writ of fieri facias de bonis ecclesiasti- 
 cis, or writ of sequestrari facias (18th July 1857, 
 
 Order 5) . ... . . . _ . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 For attending to lodge any writ of fieri facias de bonis 
 
 ecclesiasticis or writ of sequestrari facias at the Bishop's 
 
 registry, -and for attending to instruct the officer charged 
 
 with the execution of such writ (18th July 1857, 
 
 Order 5) . . 06 
 
 For preparing every other writ vnthout order . . .06 
 For every writ imder order, except special injunction . 13 
 For special injunction, including engrossment and docket 10 
 Or per folio 1 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 13 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 6 
 
 6 
 13 
 
 8 
 4 
 
 6 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 

 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 410 FEES AND CHARGES TO BE ALLOWED TO SOLICITORS. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 £, s. d. & s. d. 
 
 For inroUing a decree or order 10 10 
 
 Or per folio 014 014 
 
 ]SrOTICES AND SEEVICES. 
 
 For service of a notice of motion, exclusive of copy .026 026 
 For notice to a solicitor of appearance^ answer, demurrer, 
 
 plea, amendment, and replication .... 
 
 For notice of claim, under 36th order of 16th October 1852 
 For notice of evidence to be read in Judges' chambers 
 For notice of filing affidavit or set of affidavits filed, or 
 
 which ought properly to have been filed together, to be 
 
 read in Court 026 026 
 
 For notice of appointment for settling and passing 
 
 minutes, decrees, or orders before the Eegistrar . 
 For copy and service of a warrant on a solicitor 
 For service of a Judge's summons, exclusive of the copy 
 
 For service of a petition 
 
 For service of on order, exclusive of the copy 
 
 For other necessary or proper notice .... 
 
 For services on a party or witness such reasonable charges 
 
 and expenses as may be properly incurred, according to 
 
 distance or by the employment of an agent . 
 
 The fees for notices and services are not to apply where the same solicitor is 
 
 for both parties, unless it be necessary for the purpose of making affidavit 
 
 of service. 
 There is to be one notice only of settling minutes, and one notice of passing 
 
 decree or order, which, if necessary, are to be continued by adjournment, 
 
 of which all parties are to take notice. 
 
 OATHS AND EXHIBITS. 
 
 To the Commissioner for oath in London, according to 
 statute ......... 
 
 In the country 
 
 To the solicitor for preparing each exhibit in town and 
 country ......... 
 
 The Commissioner for marking each exhibit . . ,0 
 
 TEEM PEE. 
 
 For a term fee in. all causes, for every term in which a 
 
 proceeding by the pai-ty shall take place . . . 10 10 
 
 And for letters per term 050 050 
 
 In country agency causes the further fee for letters of '. 6 8 
 
 And if it be shown to the satisfaction of the Taxing Master that the agency 
 
 cori-espondence has been special and extensive, he is to be at liberty to 
 
 make a special allowance in respect thereof. 
 
 In addition to the term fee the necessary expense of the postage, can-iage, 
 
 and transmission of documents is to be allowed. 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
FEES TO BE COLLECTED BT MEANS OP STAMPS. 411 
 
 The like term fee and for letters in matters as in causes. 
 
 ^^^lere no proceeding is taken which carries a term fee, a char™ for letters 
 
 may he aUowed, if the circumstances shaU require it. 
 For aiiy work or lahour properly performed and riot herein provided for 
 
 such allo-wances are to be made as heretofore. ' 
 
 THE THIRD SCHEDULE. 
 
 Othek Fees to be allowed to Solicitors. 
 
 (26th Feb. 1807— 30th Jan. 1857.) 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 For perusing abstract, every three brief sheets . .068 
 
 For perusing the draft of every deed, for each skin .050 
 
 For examining the ingrossment with the draft, for every 
 
 three skins . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 For making all attested copies, examining and attesting 
 
 same, per foUo . 6 
 
 THE FOURTH SCHEDULE. 
 
 Fees to be collected bt means of Stamps. 
 
 (30th Jan. 1857.) 
 
 In the Judges' Chambers. 
 
 For every original summons for the purpose of proceedings 
 
 originating in chambers ...... 
 
 For every duplicate thereof ...... 
 
 For every other summons 
 
 For every order drawn up by the Chief Clerk, made upon 
 
 applications for time to plead, answer, or demur, for 
 
 leave to amend bOls or claims, or for enlarging publica- 
 tion, or the period for closing evidence 
 For every other order drawn up by the Chief Clerk 
 
 For every advertisement 
 
 For every certificate or report 
 
 For every certificate upon the passing of a receiver's or 
 
 consignee's account, a further fee in respect of each 
 
 £100 of the net balance received by such receiver or 
 
 consignee, after deducting all necessary outgoings for 
 
 rents, taxes, rates, repairs, and management of the 
 
 property 10 10 
 
 For every oath, affirmation, declaration, or attestation 
 
 upon honour 016 016 
 
 In the Masters' Offices. 
 
 For every warrant or simimons . . . . .030 030 
 
 For every certificate or report 10 10 
 
 For taking the acknowledgment of every married woman 16 8 10 8 
 
 5 
 1 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 5 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
412 FEES TO BE COLLECTED BY MEANS OF STAMPS. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 £ s. d. S, s. a. 
 
 For attending any couit per day by the clerk . . . 14 14 
 For every certificate upon the passing of a receiver's or 
 
 consignee's account, a further fee in respect of each 
 
 £100 of the net balance received by such receiver or 
 
 consignee, after deducting all necessary outgoings for 
 
 rents, taxes, rates, repaii-s, and management of the 
 
 property* 10 10 
 
 In the Registrars' Office. 
 
 For every decree or decretal order made by the Court on 
 a special case, or on the original hearing of a cause or 
 ' claim, or on motion for a decree, and on further direc- 
 tions, or further consideration not made on summons 
 adjourned from chambers . . . . . .100 300 
 
 For every order on petition or motion of course . .010 050 
 
 For every other order 10 100 
 
 For every office copy of a decree or order, and for every 
 office copy of a petition of appeal or rehearing made 
 under the 12th Rule of the S6th of the Consolidated 
 General Orders 10 100 
 
 Note. — The above fees are to include the charge for entry. 
 
 In the Examiners' Office. 
 
 For every witness sworn and examined, including oath, 
 for each hour 050 050 
 
 For every witness sworn and examined away from the 
 
 office (besides coach hire and reasonable expenses) .17 17 
 
 If more than five miles from the Examiner's office, for the 
 first day 2 15 2 15 
 
 For every other day . . . . _ . . .220 220 
 
 Upon every application to inspect depositions, including 
 
 the inspection 080 030 
 
 Upon every application to search book for causes, in- 
 cluding search 010 010 
 
 Upon every application to search book for depositions, 
 including search 010 010 
 
 In the Record and Writ Clerhs' Offix:e, and Report Office. 
 
 For making all office and other copies, per folio . .004 004 
 
 For filing every bill or information . . . . 10 10 
 
 For filing every claim 050 050 
 
 For filing every special case . . . . . .100 100 
 
 Upon entering every appearance, if not more than three 
 
 defendants 070 070 
 
 If more than three and not exceeding six defendants . 14 14 
 And the same proportion for every like number of defendants. 
 
 For every certificate 040 040 
 
 For marking every copy of a bill, claim, or summons to be 
 
 served 010 050 
 
 * For instances of special orders for payment of such fee as the Judge shall think reasonable, see 
 Wells T. Wales, 4 De O. J/. * ff. 816 ; Neme v. Dotiglas, 26 L. J. ch. 766. In Wastell v. Leslie, 4 Be O. M. & O. 
 818, note, and Buckmaster v. Buckmaster, 7 W. R, 678, the fee of 10s. was directed to be paid on each £100 
 of the net profits. 
 
FEES TO BE COLLECTED BY MEANS OF STAMPS. 413 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 T, • ,. ■,. . £, s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 1'otl every wnt ot summons, custrmgas, subpcena, or 
 
 attachment 050 060 
 
 For every -writ of fieri facias de bonis ecclesiasticis or 
 
 seijuestrari facias (IStli July 1857, Order 6) . .10 1 " 
 
 For sealing every other -writ 100 100 
 
 For every oath, affirmation, declaration, or attestation 
 upon honour, except for the purpose of receipt of divi- 
 dends from the Accountant-General . . . .016 016 
 
 For examining every copy or part of a copy or a set of 
 
 interrogatories, and marking same as an office copy .010 050 
 
 Upon every application for a search for a record, and for 
 
 searching 020 020 
 
 Upon every application for a search in the Report Office . 
 
 (26th October 1862, Sched. 1, Pt. 2) . . . .006 006 
 
 Upon every application to inspect a record, and for inspect- 
 ing the same 050 050 
 
 Upon every application to inspect exhibits, if occupied not 
 more than one hour 050 060 
 
 If more than one heur, per diem . . . . . 10 10 
 
 Upon every application for the officer's attendance in courts 
 of law, per diem, and for his attendance, besides reason- 
 able expenses of the officer 10 10 
 
 Upon every application for the officer's attendance in a 
 
 court of equity, and for his attendance, per diem . . 10 10 
 
 Upon every application to swear an invalid, including the 
 
 attendance, besides necessary expenses . . . . 10 10 
 
 For examining and signing inrolments of decrees and 
 
 orders 300 300 
 
 For filing caveat against claim to revive, or against decree 
 
 or order or inrolment . . . . . . .050 
 
 For filing supplemental statement or statement for revivor 5 
 
 For filing every affidavit, including schedules and exhibits 2 6 
 
 For every application to inspect an affidavit . . .006 
 
 For amendijag every record of a bill, claim, or special case 10 
 
 In the Taxing Master's Office. 
 
 For every warrant or summons, but not more than one 
 
 warrant or summons is to be issued on one bill, or set of 
 
 bills, unless the Taxing Master shall think it necessary 
 
 to issue a new warrant or summons .... 
 On signing every report and certificate .... 
 Upon the taxation of every bill of costs, as taxed, where 
 
 the amount shall not exceed £20 .... 
 
 Upon every additional ^£20 or fractional part thereof, a 
 
 further fee of ....... . 
 
 For every oath, affirmation, or attestation upon honour . 
 
 Where no certificate of the taxation of a bill of costs is required, the ad 
 valorem duty hereby directed to be levied in respect of the taxation of costs 
 shall nevertheless be due, and shall be payable on the amount of the bill 
 as taxed, or on the amount of such part thereof as may have been taxed ; 
 and the solicitor shall in such case cause the proper stamp (the amount 
 thereof to be fixed by the Taxing Master) to be impressed on or annexed 
 to the bill of costs. (4th Dec. 1852 ; Ord. 1). 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 1 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 10 
 1 
 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 1 
 
 
 6 
 
414 AMOUNTS OF STAMPS FOK COLLECTING FEES. 
 
 But where the Taxing Master sends a bill or part of a bill to the officer_ of 
 any other court, with a request to such officer to assist him in the taxation 
 thereof, and the officer of such other court takes his fee thereon, the ad 
 valorem duty hereby directed to be levied in respect of the taxation of costs 
 shall not be paid on that part of the bill so taxed and charged for by the 
 officer of such other court. (29th Nov. 1853.) 
 
 In the Lord ChanceUor's Principal Secretary^ Office. 
 
 On all attendable petitions, appeals, reheariags, and letters 
 missive ......... 
 
 On aU non-attendable petitions 
 
 On a matter of course order, on a petition of right . 
 On an order for a commission on a petition of right . 
 
 In the Office of the Secretary at the Rolls, 
 
 On every petition set down for hearing, to include the fee 
 
 on hearing 060 10 '- 
 
 On the petition for every order of course . . . .010 050 
 
 On the admission of every solicitor 1 17 
 
 In the Office of the Accountant- General. 
 
 For preparing power of attorney with affidavit, exclusive 
 
 of stamp duty 030 030 
 
 Upon ever}' application for a search 5 6 
 
 For transcript of accounts, each opening consisting of 
 
 debtor ar d creditor sides of the account (30th Jan. 1857, 
 
 and 21st June, 1854, Ord, 2.) 2 2 
 
 Lower scale. 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Higher scale. 
 £ s. d. 
 
 5 
 5 
 10 
 10 
 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 10 
 
 THE FIFTH SCHEDULE. 
 Amounts op Stamps foe collecting Fees. 
 (7th Sept. 1852. 3rd Dec. 1852. 26th July 1855.) 
 
 One penny, threepence, fourpenoe, sixpence, eightpence, one shilling, one 
 shilling and fourpence, one shilling and sixpence, one shilling and eight- 
 pence, two shillings, two shillings and sixpence, two shillings and eight- 
 pence, three shillmgs, three shillings and sixpence, four shillings, five 
 shilling's, seven shillings, eight shillings, ten shillings, fourteen shillings, 
 one pound, two pounds, three pounds, four pounds, five pounds, ten 
 pounds. 
 
 Campbell, C. 
 
 John Romilly, M. E. 
 
 J. L. Knight Beitcb, L. J. 
 
 G. J. Turner, L. J. 
 
 RiCHD. T. KiNDERSLBT, V. C. 
 
 John Stuart, V. C. 
 W. P. Wood, V. 0. 
 Hilary Term, 1860. 
 
COSTS OF PRINTING ANSWERS. 
 
 415 
 
 HULES (RELATING TO COSTS) OF GENERAL ORDER OF 
 MARCH 6, 1860, AS TO PRINTING OF ANSWERS. 
 
 VI. 
 
 On receiving from the plaintiff a demand for an oificial and certified 
 printed copy of the answers, the defendant is to get a printed copy 
 thereof examined by the Clerks of Records and Writs with the 
 answer as filed, and to stamp such copy with a chancery stamp for 
 5s. ; and the Clerks of Records and Writs, on finding that such copy 
 is duly stamped and correct, are to certify thereon that the same is a 
 correct copy, and to mark the same as an office copy. 
 
 vi. Stamps 
 on office 
 copy. 
 
 Such copy is, on demand, to be delivered to the plaintiff', who, on 
 receipt thereof, is to pay to the defendant the amount of the stamp 
 thereon, and at the rate of id. per folio for the same. 
 
 vii. Delivery 
 of office copy 
 to plaiutiQ:. 
 
 The plaintiff is also to be entitled to demand and receive from the 
 indant any additional number of printed copies of his answer, not 
 jeding ten, on payment for the same at the rate of one halfpenny 
 
 -■ folio. 
 
 LS. 
 
 After all the defendants who are required to answer shall have 
 filed their answers, a co-defendant is to be entitled to demand and 
 receive from any other defendant any number of printed copies of his 
 answer, not exceeding six, on payment for the same, at the rate of one 
 halfpenny per folio. 
 
 xm. 
 
 No costs are to be allowed, either as between party and party or as 
 between solicitor and client, for any written brief of an answer, unless 
 the Court shall direct the allowance thereof. 
 
 viii. Delivery 
 of additional 
 copies. 
 
 is. Copies 
 for co- 
 defendants. 
 
 xiii. No costs 
 for written 
 brief of 
 answer. 
 
 Solicitors are to be entitled to charge the fees mentioned in the xiv. Fees. 
 Schedule hereto. 
 
 XV. . ^^ Orders 
 
 These orders are not to apply to answers filed by defendants, or by Scept order 
 
 nlaintifts defending or suing in formd pauperis, except order 1. i, not to 
 ^ ^ o . -( -t / i apply to per- 
 — sons suing, 
 
 pauperis. 
 
 SCHEDULE (RELATIXG TO FEES) TO GENERAL 
 ORDER OF MARCH 6, 1860. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 For instructions for brief in a suit by bill on cause coming 
 on for hearing, to be charged on service of notice of 
 motion for a decree, or on service of subpoena to hear 
 
 judgment ■' r ' 
 
 The solicitor of the party answering inten'ogatories, for 
 
 perusing the interrogatories 
 
 If exceeding 40 folios, at per folio . . . _ ■ 
 The solicitor of the party filing an answer, for his attend- 
 ances on the Record and Writ Clerks, with and for the 
 written and printed copies of the answer, and for 
 
 certifying • 
 
 For examining and correcting the proof, at per folio 
 For attending the printer with the answer to be printed 
 For revising the print before swearing, or filing, at per folio 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 £ s. d. 
 
 110 2 2 
 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 8 
 2 
 8 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 8 
 2 
 
416 examinees' fees, costs of PRIISTTING AFFIDAVITS, ETC. 
 
 SCHEDULE REFERRED TO IN THE 13th RULE OF THE GENERAL 
 ORDER OF FEBRUARY 5, 1861. 
 
 Showing the expenses to be allowed to an examiner of the court when 
 acting under any such order as mentioned in the 12th Rule of that order 
 (the rule requiring the examiner to attend the examination or cross 
 examination of witnesses who are old, infirm, or out of the jurisdiction). 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 For every day in which he is necessarily, and without any default of 
 his own, detained in the performance of such duty, for his expenses 
 the sum of . 110 
 
 For every mile he travels from the examiner's office to the place of 
 examination and from one of the places of examination or cross- 
 examination (if more than one) to another of them, and from the 
 place where he last acts in such examination or cross-examination 
 to the examiner's office, the sum of 1 G 
 
 RULES (RELATING TO COSTS) OF GENERAL ORDER 
 OF MAY 16, 1862, AS TO PRINTING OF AFFIDAVITS. 
 
 Payment for 
 printed copy 
 of affidayitB. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Every party who files an affidavit or causes depositions to be 
 taken, is to take from the Clerks of Records and Writs a printed copy 
 of every affidavit filed by him, and of all such depositions, for which 
 he is to pay in stamps at the rate of twopence per folio, and unless 
 such copy is taken, he is not to be allowed anything in the taxation 
 of costs in respect of such affidavit or depositions. 
 
 For addi- 
 tional copies. 
 
 VII. 
 
 All parties are to be at liberty to take from the Clerks of Records 
 and "Writs as many other printed copies of theii- own and of their 
 opponents' affidavits and depositions as they may require, on paying 
 for the same in stamps at the rate of one penny per folio. 
 
 Allowance to 
 SoKcitora for 
 printed 
 copies. 
 
 vin. 
 
 Solicitors are to be allowed, on the taxation of costs, the same fees 
 for printed copies of the affidavits and depositions used for the briefs 
 of counsel as solicitors are now allowed for written copies ; and in 
 country agency causes they are also to be allowed at the rate of 
 fourpence per folio for one other printed copy of the affidavits and 
 depositions of the opposite party; but for all other printed copies 
 which may be necessarily used in the progress of the cause, solicitors 
 are to be allowed only the sums actually paid for the same. 
 
FEES UNDER C03IPAN1ES ACT, 1862. 4l7 
 
 FIRST AXD SECOND SCHEDULES (RELATING TO FEES, &o.) TO 
 GENERAL ORDER OF NOV. 11, 1862, REGULATING THE MODE 
 OF PROCEEDING UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1862.* 
 
 Fees ajtd Chakges to be allowed to Solicitors. 
 
 £ 1. i. 
 
 For preparing and drawing up every order made at Chambers, and 
 
 attending for same, and at the Registrar's Office to get same entered 13 4 
 
 For ingrossing every order, in addition to the above fee, per folio .004 
 
 For other duties performed, such of the fees on the higher scale authorised 
 
 by the 2nd rule of the 38th of the consolidated general orders, and the 
 
 regulations as to solicitors' fees subjoined thereto, as are applicable; except 
 
 that the special fee allowed on creditor's claim is not to apply. 
 T\ here under such regulations, a fee of £3 8s. may he allowed for attending 
 
 any sumonons or other appointment at the Judges' Chambers, the same 
 
 may be increased to any sum not exceeding £5 5s. 
 The fee of '2s. Qd. allowed by such regulations for notices and services shall 
 
 be reduced to Is. Qd. where the service may be effected, as provided by the 
 
 above rule 63. 
 The usual charges relating to printing shall be allowed in lieu of copies for 
 
 service where the fee for copies would exceed the charges for printing, and 
 
 amount to more than £3. 
 
 FEES TO BE COLLECTED BY MEANS OF STAMPS. 
 
 In the Judges' Chamhers. '^r^l^^^f.' ™f ''f'''^: 
 
 For every original simimons . . . . . .050 050 
 
 For every duplicate 010 050 
 
 For every other summons 010 030 
 
 For every order drawn up by the chief clerk . . .010 050 
 
 For every other order 10 100 
 
 For every advertisement ....... 100 
 
 For every certificate .100 100 
 
 For every oath, aflnrmation, declaration, or attestation 
 
 upon honour 16 
 
 In the Registrar's Office. 
 
 For every decree or decretal order 10 ? 5 5 
 
 For every order made in court 10 10 
 
 For every order made in chambers 10 5 
 
 In the Examiner's Office. 
 The same fees as those directed to be paid and collected in such office, by the 
 2nd rule of the 39th of the consolidated general orders, and the regulations sub- 
 joined thereto. 
 
 In the Record and Writ Clerh's Office and Report Office. 
 Such of the fees directed to be paid and collected in such office by the 2nd 
 rule of the 39th of the consolidated general orders, and the regulations sub- 
 joined thereto, as are applicable. 
 
 » These fees are to be allowed, ' unless tte CouTt shall otherwise specially direct ' (70th rule of the 
 Order). They are to be collected by means of stamps (7lBt rule). 
 
 E E 
 
418 GENERAL ORDERS RELATING TO COSTS. 
 
 In the Taxing Master's Office. 
 
 The same fees as those directed to be paid and collected by the 2nd rule of the 
 39th of the consolidated general orders, and the regulations subjoined thereto. 
 
 In the Office of the Lwd Chancellor's principal Secretary. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 £ s. tf. £ i. d. 
 
 For eyery petition 10 
 
 In the Office of the Secretary at the Molls. 
 
 For every attendable petition 050 100 
 
 For all uon-attendable petitions 5 10 
 
419 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 FORMS OF SUBPCENA AXD WRITS FOR COSTS. 
 
 1. Suhpwna for Costs, 
 ViCIOEIA, &c. 
 
 To , greeting. 
 
 We command you [and every of you] that you pay, or cause to be paid, imme- 
 diately after the service of this Writ, to , or the bearer of these presents, 
 
 £ — costs^ [in a cause wherein A. B. \_and others or another] is [or are] plaintiff 
 [or plaintiffs], and C. D. [or others m- another] is [or are] defendant [or defen- 
 dants], [or in the_ matter of {as the case may be)'] by our Court of Chancery 
 
 adjudged to be paid by you, the said , under pain of an attachment issuing 
 
 against your person, and such process for contempt as the Com-t shall award in 
 default of such payment. 
 
 ROMILLT, M. R. 
 Witness, &c. 
 
 2. JTrit of Fieri Facias on a decree or order of the Court of Chanccrij for the 
 payment of money and costs. 
 
 ViCIOKIA, &c. 
 
 To the Sheriff of , gi'eeting. 
 
 We command you that of the goods and chattels of 0. D. in your bailiwick 
 you cause to be made the sum of — , which said sum of money was lately, before 
 us in our High Court of Chancery, in a cextain cause [or certain causes, as the case 
 may be] wherein A. B. is plaintiff and C. D. is defendant [or, in a certain matter 
 there depending intituled, 'In the matter of E. F.,' as the case may be], by a 
 
 decree [or order, as the case may be] of our said Court, bearing date the day 
 
 of , decreed [or ordered, as the case may be] to be paid by the said C. D. to 
 
 A. B., together with certain costs in the said decree [or order, as the case may be] 
 
 mentioned, and which costs have been taxed and allowed by , one of the 
 
 Taxing Masters of oiu* said Com-t, at the sum of £ — , as appears by the certificate 
 
 of the said Taxing Master, dated the day of . And that of the goods and 
 
 chattels of the said C, D., in your bailiwick, you further cause to be made the 
 said sum of £ — ,* together with interest at the rate of £4 per centum per annum 
 
 on the said sum of £ — ,f from the day of ■ ,f and on the said sum of £ — ,* 
 
 from the day of .§ And that you have that money and interest 
 
 before us, in our said court immediately after the execution hereof to be paid 
 to the said A. B. in pursuance of the said decree [or order, as the case may be]. 
 
 * The costs. t Tlie money. 
 
 X The date of the Order. § The dai^ of the certificate. 
 
 F, E 2 
 
420 FORMS OF SUBPCENA AND WRITS FOR COSTS. 
 
 And tliat you do all sucli things as by the Statute passed in the second yeax- of 
 our reign you are authorised and requested to do in this behalf. And in what 
 manner you shall have executed this our writ, make appear to us in our said 
 court immediately after the execution thereof. And have there then this writ. 
 Witness, &c. 
 
 3. Writ of Fieri Facias, mi a decree or order of the Court of Chancery for payment 
 
 of money, interest, and costs. 
 ViOIOELi, &c. 
 
 To the Sheriff of , greeting. 
 
 We command you that of the goods and chattels of 0. D., in your hailiwiclr, 
 you cause to be made the sum of £ — , and also interest thereon at the rate of 
 
 £ — per centum per annum, from the day of ,* which said sum of money 
 
 and interest were lately, before us in oui- High Court of Chancery, in a certain 
 cause [or causes, as tJie case may he'] wherein A. B. is plaintiff and C. D. in 
 defendant [or, in a cei'tain matter there depending, intituled, ' In the matter of 
 E. r.,' as the case may he], by a decree [or order, as the case may he"] of our said 
 
 court, bearing date the day of , decreed [or ordered, as the case may he] 
 
 to be paid by the said C. D. to A. B., together with certain costs in the said 
 decree [or order, as the case may he] mentioned, and which costs have been taxed 
 
 and allowed by , one of the Taxing Masters of our said court, at the sum of 
 
 £^-, as appears by the certificate of the said Taxing Master, dated the day 
 
 of . And that of the goods and chattels of the said C. D. in yom- bailivrick, 
 
 you fmther cause to be made the aaid sum of £ — , together with interest thereon 
 
 at the rate aforesaid from the day of .f And that you have that money 
 
 and interest before us in our said court immediately after the execution hereof, 
 to be paid to the said A. B. in pursuance of the said decree [or order, as the case 
 may he]. And that you do all such thing-s as by the statute passed in the second 
 year of our reign you are authorised and required to do in this behalf And in what 
 manner you shall have executed this our writ, make appear to us in our said court 
 immediately after the execution thereof. And have there then this writ. 
 
 Witness, &c. 
 
 4. Writ of Fieri Facias on a decree or order of the Court of Chancery for 
 payment of costs, 
 ViOTOBIA, &c. 
 
 To the Sheriff of , greeting. 
 
 We command you that of the goods and chattels of C. D., in your bailiwick, 
 you cause to be made the sum of £ — , for certain costs which were lately before 
 us, in our High Court of Chancery, in a certain cause [or certain causes, as the 
 case may he] wherein A. B. is plaintiff, and C. D. is defendant, [or, a certain 
 matter there depending, intituled, ' In the matter of E. F.,' as the case mxiy he] by 
 
 a decree, [or order, as the case may he] of our said Court, bearing date the 
 
 day of , decreed [or ordered, as the case may he] to be paid by the said C. D. 
 
 to A. B., and which costs have been taxed and allowed by , one of the Taxing 
 
 Masters of our said Court, at the said sum of £ — , as appears by the certificate 
 
 of the said Taxing Master, dated the day of . And that of the goods 
 
 and chattels of the said C. D., in your bailiwick, you further cause to be made 
 interest on the said sum of £ — , at the rate of £4 per centum per annum, from 
 
 the day of .f And that you have that money and interest before us, in 
 
 our said Court, immediately after the execution hereof, to be paid to the said A. 
 B. in pursuance of the said decree [or order, as tlie case may be.] And that you 
 
 * The day mentioned jn the order. t The date of the certificate. 
 
WRIT OF ELEGIT FOR COSTS. 421' 
 
 sliall do all such thing-s as by the statute passed in tlie second year of our reign, 
 you are authorised and required to do in this behalf. And in what manner you 
 shall have executed this our writ, make appear to us in our said court immedi- 
 ately after the execution thereof. And have there then this wi-it. 
 "Witness, &c. 
 
 5. TTiit of Ehgit; on a decree or order of the Court of Chancery fm- payment of costs. 
 
 io the Sherift of , g;reeting. 
 
 TSTiereas, lately in oiu- High Court of Chancery, in a certain cause [or certain 
 causes, as the case may be'] there depending, wherein A. B. and others are plain- 
 tifis, and C. D. and others are defendants, [or in a certain matter there depending, 
 intituled ' In the matter of E. F.,' as tJie case may 6e] by a decree [or order, as the 
 case jnay Je] of our said Court, made in the said cause [m- matter, as the case may 
 
 fte] and bearing date the day of , it was decreed and ordered [or ordered, 
 
 OS the case may 6e] that C. D. should pay unto A. B. certain costs, as in the said 
 decree [or order, as the case may he] mentioned, and which costs have been taxed 
 
 and allowed by , one of the Taxing Masters of our said Court, at the sum of 
 
 £ — , as appears by the certificate of the said Taxing Master, dated the day 
 
 of . And afterwards the said A. B. came into our said Court of Chancery, 
 
 and according to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, chose 
 to be delivered to him aUthe goods and chattels of the said C. D. in your baili- 
 wick, except his oxen and beasts of the plough; and also aU such lands, tenements, 
 and rectories, tithes, rents, and hereditaments, including lands and hereditaments 
 of copyhold or customary tenure, in your bailiwick, as the said C. D., or any one 
 
 in trust for him, was seised or possessed of, on the day of *, in the year 
 
 of our Lord , or at any time afterwards, or over which the said C. D. on the 
 
 said day of *, or at any time afterwards, had any disposing power, which he 
 
 might without the assent of any other person exercise for his own benefit; to hold 
 to him the said goods and chattels as his proper goods and chattels, and to hold 
 the said lands, tenements, rectories, tithes, rents, and hereditaments respectively, 
 according to the nature and tenure, to him and to his assigns, until the said sum 
 of :2 — , together with interest thereon at the rate of £4 per centum per annum, 
 
 from the said day of ,* shall have been levied. Therefore we command 
 
 you, that without delay you cause to be delivered to the said A. B., by reasonable 
 price and extent, all the goods and chattels of the said C. D. in your bailiwick, 
 except his oxen and beasts of the plough; and also all such lands, tenements, 
 rectories, tithes, rents, and hereditaments, including lands and hereditaments of 
 copyhold or customaay tenure, in your bailiwick, as the said C. D., or any person 
 
 or persons in trust for him, was or were seised or possessed of, on the said 
 
 day of ', or at any other time afterwards, or over which the said C. D., on the 
 
 said day of *, or at any other time afterwards had any disposing power, 
 
 which he might, without the assent of any other person or persons, exercise for 
 his own benefit ; to hold the same goods and chattels to the said A. B. as his 
 proper goods and chattels, and also to hold the said lands, tenements, rectories, 
 tithes, rente, and hereditaments respectively, according to the nature and tenure 
 thereof, to him and to hia assigns, until the said sum of £ — , together with 
 interest as aforesaid, shall have levied. And in what manner you shall have 
 executed this our writ make appear to us in our Court of Chancery as aforesaid 
 immediately after the execution thereof, under your seal and the seals of'those 
 by whose oath you shall make the said extent and appraisement. And have 
 there then this writ. 
 Witness ourself at Westminster, &c. Romilly, M. R. 
 
 * The date of the certificate. 
 
422 FORMS or SUBPCENA AND WRITS FOE COSTS. 
 
 6. Writ of Elegit, on a decree or order of the Court of Chancer]/ for payment of 
 
 money and costs. 
 
 Victoria, &c. 
 
 To the Sheriff of , greeting. 
 
 Wliereas, lately in our High Court of Chancery, in a certain cause [or certain 
 causes, as the case may ie,] there depending, wherein A. B. and others are plaintiffs, 
 and 0. D. and others are defendants [or, in a certain matter there depending 
 intituled, ' In the matter of E. F,' as the case may le,'] by a decree [or order, as the 
 case may be,'] of our said Court, made in the said cause [or, matter, as the case may 
 
 he,] and bearing date the ■ day of , it was decreed and ordered [or, ordered, 
 
 as the case may he,] that C. D. should pay unto A. B, the sum of £ — , together 
 with certain costs as in the said decree [or order, as the case may Je,] mentioned, 
 
 and which costs have been taxed and allowed by ■, one of the Taxing Masters 
 
 of our said Court, at the sum of £ — , as appears by the certificate of the said 
 
 Taxing Master, dated the day of , and afterwards the said A. B. came 
 
 into our said Court of Chancery, and according to the form of statute in such case 
 made and provided, chose to be delivered to him all the goods and chattels of the 
 said C. D. in your bailiwick, except his oxen and beasts of the plough, and also all 
 such lands, tenements, rectories, tithes, rents and hereditaments, including lands 
 and hereditaments of copyhold or customary tenure, in your bailiwick, as the said 
 
 C. D., or any one in trust for him, was seised or possessed of, on the day of 
 
 *, in the year of our Lord , or at any time afterwards, or over which the 
 
 said C. D. on the said day of *, or at any time afterwards had any dis- 
 posing power which he might, without the assent of any other person, exercise for 
 his own benefit ; to hold to him the said goods and chattels, as his proper goods 
 and chattels, and to hold the same lands, tenements, rectories, tithes, rents and 
 hereditaments respectively, according to the nature and tenure thereof, to him and 
 to his assigns, until the two said several sums of £ — and £ ^, together vdth 
 interest upon the said sum of £ — at the rate of £4 per centum per annum, from 
 
 the day of *, and on the said sum oi £ — at the rate of aforesaid, 
 
 from the day of 1, shall have been levied. Therefore we Command you 
 
 that, without delay, you cause to be delivered to the said A. B. by a reasonable 
 price and extent, all the goods and chattels of the said C. D. in your bailiwick, 
 except his oxen and beasts of the plough, and also such lands and tenements, 
 rectories, tithes, rents and hereditaments, including lands and hereditaments of 
 copyhold or customaiy tenure, in your bailiwick, as the said C. D. or any person 
 
 or persons in trust for him, was or were seised or possessed of on the said day 
 
 of *, or at any time afterwards, or over which the said C. D. on the said 
 
 day of *, or at any time afterwards had any disposing power, which he might 
 
 without the assent of any other person exercise for his own benefit ; to hold the 
 said goods and chattels to the said A. B. as his proper goods and chattels, and also 
 to hold the said lands, tenements, rectories, tithes, rents, and hereditaments re- 
 spectively, according to the nature and tenure thereof, to him and to his assigns, 
 until the said two several sums oi £ — • and £ — , together with interest as afore- 
 said, shall have been levied. And in what manner you shall have executed this our 
 writ make appear to us in our Court of Chancery aforesaid, immediately after 
 the execution thereof, under yom- seal and the seals of those by whose oath you 
 shall make the said extent and appraisement. And have there then this writ. 
 
 Witness ourself at "Westminster, &c. 
 
 ROMIILT, M. R. 
 
 * The day on which the decree or order was made. t The date ot the certificate. 
 
WRIT OP ELEGIT FOR MONEY, ETC. 423 
 
 7. U'ril of Elegit, on a dtcree or order of the Court of Chancery for payment of 
 money, interest, and costs. 
 Victoria, &c. 
 
 To tlie Sheriif of , greeting. 
 
 "WTiereas lately in our High Com-t of Chancery in a certain cause [oi- certain 
 causes, as the case may be] there depending, wherein A. B. and others are plaintiffs 
 and 0. D. and others are defendants [or, in a certain matter there depending, 
 intituled, ' In the matter of E. F.,' as the case may be], by a decree [or order, as 
 the case may be] of oiu^ said Court made in the said cause [or matter, as the case 
 
 may be], and bearing date the day of , it was Ordered and decreed [or 
 
 ordered, as the case may be] that C. D. should pay imto A. B. the sum of £ — , 
 together with interest thereon after the rate of £ — per centum per annum from 
 
 the day of , together also with certain costs as in the said decree [or 
 
 order, as the case may be] mentioned, and which costs have been taxed and 
 
 allowed by , one of the Taxing Masters of our said court, at the sum of £— , 
 
 as appears by the certificate of the said Taxing Master, dated the day of 
 
 . _ And afterwards the said A. B. came into our said Com-t of Chancery, and 
 
 according to the statute in such case made and provided, chose to be delivered 
 to him all the goods and chattels of the said C. D. in your bailiwick, except his 
 oxen and beasts of the plough, and also all such lands, tenements, rectories, tithes, 
 rents, and hereditaments, including lands and hereditaments of copyhold or 
 customary tenui'e, in your bailiwick, as the said C. D. or any one in trust for him 
 
 was seised or possessed of, on the day of ,* in the year of our Lord , 
 
 or at any time afterwards, or over which the said C. D. on the said • day 
 
 of ,' or at any time afterwards had any disposing power, which he 
 
 might, without the assent of any other person, exercise for his own benefit; 
 to hold to him the said goods and chattels as his proper goods and chattels, 
 and to hold the said lands, tenements, rectories, tithes, rents, and heredi- 
 taments respectively, according to the nature and tenure thereof, to him and 
 to his assigns, until the said two several sums of £ — and £ — , together with 
 interest upon the said sum of £ — at the rate of £ — per centum per annum from 
 
 the said day of ■ f and on the said sum of £ — at the rate of £ — per centum 
 
 per annum from the day of ,X shall have been levied. Therefore we 
 
 command you that without delay you cause to be delivered to the said A. B., by 
 a reasonable price and extent, all the goods and chattels of the said C. D. in your 
 bailiwick, except his oxen and beasts of the plough, and also all such lands 
 tenements, rectories, tithes, rents, and hereditaments, including lands and 
 hereditaments of copyhold or customary tenme, in your bailiwick, as the said 
 C D. or any other person or persons in trust for him was or were seised or 
 
 possessed of, on the said day of , or at any time afteiwards, or over which 
 
 the said C. D. on the said day of , or at any time afterwards, had any 
 
 disposing power which he might, without the assent of any other person, exercise 
 for his own benefit ; to hold the said goods and chattels to the said A. B. as his 
 proper goods and chattels, and also to hold the said lands, tenements, rectories, 
 tithes, rents, and hereditaments respectively, according to the nature and tenure 
 thereof, to him and to his assigns, until the said two several sums of £ — and 
 £ — , together with interest as aforesaid, shall have been levied. And in what 
 manner you shall have executed this our writ, make appear to us in our Court 
 of Chancery aforesaid immediately after the execution thereof, under your seal 
 and the seals of those by whose oath you shall make the said extent and 
 appraisement. And have there then this writ. 
 
 Witness ourself at Westminster, &c. Romiilt, M. R. 
 
 • The day on whinh the decree or order was made. t The day mentioned in the decree or order. 
 
 X The date of the certificate. 
 
424 FORMS OF SUBPCENA AND WRITS fOR COSTS. 
 
 8. Writ of Venditioni Exponas, 
 
 ViCIOBIA, &c. 
 
 To the Sheriff of , greeting. 
 
 Whereas by our -writ we lately commanded you that of the goods and chattels 
 
 of 0. D. [here recite the Fieri Facias to the end]. And on the day of , 
 
 you returned to us in our Court of Chancery aforesaid, that by virtue of the said 
 writ to you (ffirected, you had taken goods and chattels of the said C. D., to the 
 value of the money and interest aforesaid, which said goods and chattels remained 
 in your hands unsold for want of buyers : Therefore, we being desirous that the 
 said A. B. should be salrisfied his money and interest aforesaid, command you 
 that you expose to sale, and sell or cause to be sold, the goods and chattels of the 
 said C. D., by you in form aforesaid taken, and every part thereof, for the best 
 price that can be gotten for the same, and have the money arising from such sale 
 before us in our Court of Chancery aforesaid, immediately after the execution 
 hereof, to be paid to the said A. B. And have there then this writ. 
 
 Witness ourself at Westminster, the day of— — , in the year of our 
 
 reign. 
 
 ROMIILT, M. E. 
 
 9. Writ of Fieri Facias De Bonis Ecclesiasticis. 
 ViCTOKIA, &c. 
 
 To the Bight Reverend Father in God, (John) by Divine permission, Lord 
 
 Bishop of , greeting. 
 
 We command you that of the ecclesiastical goods of C. D., clerk in your 
 diocese, you cause to be made £ — , which lately before us in our Court of Chan- 
 cery, in a certain cause [or certain causes, as the case may he,] wherein A. B. is 
 plaintiff, and C. D. is defendant, or in a certain matter there depending, intituled 
 ' In the matter of E. F.,' as t?w case may he, \ by a decree, \or order, as the case 
 
 m,ay he] of our said Court, bearing date the day of, was decreed [or ordered, 
 
 as the case may he] to be paid by the said C. D. to the said A. B., together with 
 interest on the said sum of £ — , at the rate of £ — per centum per annum, from 
 the — — day of , and have that money, together with such interest as afore- 
 said, before us in our said Court, immediately after the execution hereof, to be 
 
 rendered to the said A. B., for that our Sheriff of , returned to us in our said 
 
 Court, on or at a day now passed | that the said C. D. had not any goods or 
 
 chattels, or any lay fee in his bailiwick, whereof he could cause to be made the 
 said £ — , and interest aforesaid, or any part thereof, and that the said C. D. was 
 a beneficed Clerk, (to wit) Rector of the Rectory [or Vicar of the Vicarage] and 
 
 Parish Church of , in the said Sheriff's county, and within your diocese, [as 
 
 in the return ; \ and in what manner you shall have executed this our writ, make 
 appear to us in our said Court, immediately after the execution hereof, and have 
 you there then this writ. 
 
 Witness ourself at Westminster, the day of , in the year of our 
 
 Lord . 
 
 ROMIXLT, M. E. 
 
 10. Writ of Fieri Facias to tlie Archbishop, Be Bonis Ecclesiasticis, durintf 
 
 the vacancy of a Bishop's See. 
 ViCIOEIA, &c. 
 
 To the Right Reverend Father in God, (John) by Divine Providence Lord 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, greeting. 
 We command you, that of the Ecclesiastical goods of C. D., Clerk, in your 
 
WRIT OF SEQUESTEAEI PACIAS, ETC. 425 
 
 diocese of , which is within the province of Canterbiu'y, as ordinary of that 
 
 church, theEpiscopal See of now being vacant, you cause to be made [&c., 
 
 cmidude as in the preceding form.^ 
 
 11. Writ of Sequestrari Facias Be Bonis Ecclesiasticis. 
 YlCIOEIA, &c. 
 
 To the Eight Reverend Father in God, (John) by Divine permission Lord 
 
 Bishop of , greeting. 
 
 "\Miereas we lately commanded our Sheriff of , that he should omit not 
 
 by reason of ajiy liberty of his county, but that he should enter the same, and 
 cause to he made, if after the retm-n to a Fieri Facias, or delivered, if after the 
 return to an Elegit, &c,, and in eitlier case recite the forme)- writ.'] And whereupon 
 
 our said Sheriff of , on [or, at a day passed] returned to us in our said 
 
 Court of Chancery, that the said C. D. was a beneficed clerk, that is to say, Rector 
 
 of the Rectory, [or Vicar of the Vicarage] and Parish Church of , in the county 
 
 of , and within your diocese, and that he had not any goods or chattels, or 
 
 any lay fee, in his bailiwick, [here folloio the words of the Sheriff's retuni,'] 
 Therefore we command you that you enter into the said Rectory, [or Vicarage] 
 
 and Parish Church of , and take and sequester the same into your possession, 
 
 that you hold the same in your possession until you shall have levied the said 
 £ — , and interest aforesaid, of the rents, tithes, rent charges in lieuof tithes, obla- 
 tions, obventions, fruits, issues, and profits thereof, and other ecclesiastical goods in 
 your diocese, of and belonging to the said Rectory [or Vicarage] and Parish Church 
 
 of , and to the said C. D. as Rector [or Vicar] thereof, to be rendered to the 
 
 said A. B. ; and what you shall do therein, make appear to us in our said Court 
 immediately after the execution hereof; and have you there then this writ. 
 
 "Witness ourself at Westminster, the day of , in the year of our 
 
 Lord . 
 
 ROMILLY, M. R. 
 
 Indorse it as a Fi. Fa., after the words expenses of execution add and seques- 
 tration. 
 
426 FOEMS OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 FORMS AND PRECEDENTS OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 General Pkactical Dieeciions. 
 
 As to different kinds of Costs, 
 See ante, pp. 1, 2. 
 
 As to different Scales of Costs. 
 See ante, p. 401, seq. 
 
 Computation. 
 72 words go to the folio, 10 folios go to each sheet, except Abstracts, wliicli 
 are to contain 8 folios each sheet. (See atite, p. 328). 
 
 Instructions for Bills, Ansivers, Examinations, Affidavits, and Petitions. 
 
 Where the higher scale is applicahle, the Taxing Master is at liberty to take 
 into consideration the special circumstances of each case, and at his discretion to 
 malfe such allowances for work, labour, and expenses, properly performed and 
 incurred in or about the preparation of the bill or answer, examination, affidaTit, 
 or petition, as shall appear to him to be just, having regard to the length of the 
 document, the nature of the suit, the interests of the parties, and the fund or 
 person from which or by whom the costs are to be paid. No instructions for 
 affidavit when made by the solicitor or his clerk, except in cases involving com- 
 putations of interest or calculations, and ascertaining residues. 
 
 Draioing. 
 
 The fee for drawing a document, in all cases includes a copy if required for the 
 use of the solicitor or client, or for the settlement of counsel. 
 
 Perusals. 
 
 The fees for perusals are not to apply where the same solicitor is for both- 
 parties. No perusals of exhibits (except accounts). 
 
 Cotinsel." 
 The fees for attending each counsel vrith his brief, case, or affidavit, in a suit or 
 other proceeding, in the Court of Chancery, are according to both scales, Qs. 8d., 
 and the further fees, applicable to the higher scale only, are as follows : — 
 
 For the like attendance where the fee amounts to five guineas 
 Where it amounts to twenty guineas ...... 
 
 Where it amounts to forty guineas or upwards .... 
 
 * Sec as to fees for consultations and conferences and fees to counsel generally, ante, pp. 351-6. 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 

 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 2 2 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 GENERAL PRACTICAL DIRECTIONS. 427 
 
 A ccmtntan t- Gen eral. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 For attending the Accountant-Generol to bespeai and '" '*' * "' ''" 
 
 afterwiirds to procure his directions for payment of 
 
 money into com-t, attending at the Bank of England to 
 
 pay the money, and for attending the Accountant-Geu- 
 
 erixl with the receipt, and at the Report Office to bespeak 
 
 and to procure office copy ...... 
 
 TSTiere the sum paid in shall amount to £100 . 
 
 AATiere the sum shall amount to £1,000 .... 
 
 And where the siuu shall amount to £5,000 
 
 Drawing request to invest and attending 
 
 For each caiTying over and attending .... 
 
 For bespeaking transcript of account .... 
 
 For every sale or transfer, including attendance before 
 
 Kegistrar ......... 
 
 For attending to identify 
 
 Ajisu'er" or Examination. 
 
 For attending to settle and afterwards to read over the 
 
 engrossment of an answer or examination . . .068 0134 
 
 If the same exceeds 20 folios and under 50 folios . .0134 110 
 
 And for each additional 30 folios 6 8 6 8 
 
 Surmnons.^ 
 
 For attending a summons or other appointment, each day, a fee of 6s. 8r?., 13s. 
 4«?., or £1 Is., according to circumstances, to be allowed by the chief clerk. The 
 Judge has power to increase the ordiaary fees. See regulations as to fees, 
 appendix, and charge according to the chief clerk's certificate of allowances. 
 
 3Iinictes. , 
 
 Copy minutes, 7 sides 
 
 Attending to settle the draft or minutes of decree or order 
 Or at the Taxing Master's discretion, not to exceed . . 1 
 To pass order ......... 
 
 The Kegistrar may certify a special allowance in settling an order. 
 
 Notices and Services. 
 
 The fees for notices and services are not to apply where the same solicitor is for 
 both parties. One notice only for settling minutes, and one notice of passing 
 decree or order, and notice of filing each affidavit or set of affidavits. 
 
 Close Copies. 
 
 No close copies are now as of course allowed. See ante, p. 406. The propriety 
 of making them is to be shown and considered. 
 
 Ohservaiions.X 
 
 None allowed under the lower scale. 
 
 ^ As to costs of answer generally, sec aah\ pp. ."4!), 41 h. 
 
 t As to costs of proceedings in chambers generally, .see ««/<•, pp. 05, 128. 
 
 t As to costs of drawing observations, &c., see antQ, p. 354. 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
428 
 
 FORMS OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 Term Fee* — Agency Correspondence. 
 
 If the agency correspondence has been special or extensive, an allowance is 
 made in respect thereof, in addition to the term fee. The carriage and transmission 
 of documents is allowed.* 
 
 FEINTED ANSWEES FEOM THE 15th APEIL, 1860. 
 See the order of 6th March 1860, Appendix No. 1, ante, p. 415. 
 The charges are as follows : — 
 
 Plaintiff". Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 •" £ s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 Paid for printed copy of answer, per 96 folios . . . 1 12 1 12 
 
 Paid for stamp thereon 050 050 
 
 Paid for additional number of printed copies at the rate of 
 one halfpenny per folio. 
 
 Perusing printed answer 068 13 4 
 
 If exceeding 40 folios, per folio 4 
 
 Attending to bespeak office copy schedule of account .068 068 
 
 Paid for same, per folio 004 004 
 
 Perusing 004 004 
 
 Close copy 004 004 
 
 No brief answer allowed, ante, p. 349. 
 
 JDefendant. 
 
 Copy answer for certifying without schedule, per folio 
 Attending Eecord and Writ Clerk .... 
 
 Attending printer 
 
 Examining proof, per folio 
 
 Examining revise (if print filed), per folio 
 
 Paid printer (deducting siun received for copies). 
 
 Paid stamp (repaid by plaintiff's solicitor). 
 
 No brief answer allowed, ante, p. 349, 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 AFFIDAVITS AND DEPOSITIONS.t 
 
 Printed from the 16th May 1862. See the order of that date, Appendix I., p. 416. 
 The charge as follows : — 
 
 Plaintiff or Defendant. 
 
 Fair copy of affidavit of plaiutiif or defendant, to leave at 
 
 Eecord Office, fo. 30, 10 10 
 
 Attending with copy of affidavit for printing and certifying 6 8 6 8 
 Paid for stamped printed copies of the plaintiff's evidence 5 6 5 6 
 Printed copies of defendant's evidence, for the country, 
 
 fo. 34 11 4 11 4 
 
 IPerusing same 11 4 11 4 
 
 * As to term fees, see ante, p. 357, 410. 
 
 t A.-! to costs of witnesses, see ante, p. 31 ; of aflSdavits settled by counsel, ante, p. 35,5 ; of unnecessary 
 length in affidavits, ante, p. 348 ; of affidavits filed, but not entered in the orders as read' ante p. 350. 
 
BILL OF COSTS OF PLAINTIFFS. 429 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 2 printed copies of plaintiff's evidence for counsel, fo 33 ^ "' "" * '' "' 
 
 together, fo. 66 'l20 190 
 
 2 pnnted copies of defendant's evidence, fo. 34 each- 
 
 together, fo. 68, for counsel 'l28 l'>8 
 
 Paid for 3 other copies of the plaintiff's evidence, at 1<; ' 
 
 together, fo. 99 ' _ ! 8 3 8 3 
 
 2 pi-ints of bill, aaswer, and evidence, for Judge ai-e allowed to the plaintiff. 
 
 BILL OF COSTS IN CHANCEEY. 
 OffiUna Bill and Amendmeyit of same—Admce on Evidence— Summons for pro- 
 duction ot Documents—Evidence hy AffidaviU—With Crosa-examinatimi hy 
 special EMiminer—Enlarc/iny of Time for taking Evidence— Setting down Cause— 
 Suhpcena to hear Judgment, and Hearing of Cause— Certificate— Further Con- 
 sideraticni and Taxation of Costs. 
 
 BETWiaaf Plaintiffs. 
 
 AWD 
 
 Defendants. 
 The Bill of Costs of the Plaintiffs to be taxed wider order, hearing date the 
 day of 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 . , .„ ^ ; Feb. 1,1857. Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 Instructions for bill * 13 4 220 
 
 Copy will or other necessary document, per sheet . .034 034 
 
 Drawing bill, forty-five folios 2 5 2 5 
 
 Attending Tslx. with same to peruse and settle 6 8 6 8 
 
 Fee to him and clerk therewith 2 4 6 2 4 6 
 
 Copy bill for the printer • 15 15 
 
 Attending him with instructions to print, and afterwards 
 
 for proof sheet 068 068 
 
 Examining and correcting same (2d. per folio) . .076 076 
 Paid printer's bill, giving credit for sums paid for copies 
 
 Paid stampingt . 10 10 
 
 Attending to seal two copies for service . . . .068 068 
 
 Certificate under lower scale of fees, and signing same .050 000 
 
 Paid stamps J 020 10 
 
 Service each § . . .026 026 
 
 Attending defendant's agent for, and obtained undertalring 
 
 to appear . . . . . . . . .068 068 
 
 Instructions for interrogatories 068 01 3 4 
 
 Drawing same, seventeen folios 17 17 
 
 Attending counsel therewith to settle . . . .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 136 136 
 
 Ingrossing interrogatories (before 1861) . . . .086 086 
 
 Paid for parchment 050 060 
 
 Copy for service . . . . . . . .058 058 
 
 Attending sealing 068 068 
 
 * See general directions, ant^, p. 426. 
 
 t See as to stamps, ante. p. 402, note. Several stamps may, in ca^es of emergency, be annexed to a 
 bill (Brain v. Brain, 9 Hare. App. 90). . In Kershaw y. Kalow, 1 Jur. n. 8. 974, leave was given to file an 
 unstamped bill, the plaintiff's solicitor undertaking to have it stamped the next day. 
 
 t If plaintiff's solicitor appears for defendant, no stamp necessary. 
 
 5 If personal service, according to distance. 
 
430 FORMS OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. Feb. 1. 1857. 
 
 A s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 Paid Stamp 010 050 
 
 Service thereof on defendant's agent . . . .026 026 
 April 5th. — Attending summons for time to answer ; one 
 
 fortnight given . . . . . . . .068 068 
 
 Term fee, letters, &c , . . 15 15 
 
 In country cases 6 8 
 
 JEaster Tm-m, 186 . 
 
 Paid for office copy answer, ninety-six folios (before 
 
 Qth. March, 1860) 4d. per folio 1 12 1 12 
 
 Stamp . 050 050 
 
 Close copy * 1 12 1 12 
 
 Perusing answer 068 13 4 
 
 If exceeding 40 folios, per folio 4 
 
 Attending counsel to advise on sufficiency of answer f .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 246 246 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Copy opinion of counsel for the country . . . .010 010 
 Attending counsel, and appointing conference in respect of 
 
 points yet undisposed ot, and in regard to the amendment 
 
 oftheWU 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid him conference fee and clerk 16 16 
 
 Attending conference § 13 4 13 4 
 
 Instructions for amendment of bill || . . . .068 13 4 
 
 Drawing amendments, ten folios 10 10 
 
 Fee to Sir. to peruse and settle same . .13 6 13 6 
 
 Attending him . . . ' 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing and ingrossing petition to amend HU . .040 040 
 
 Attending to present, and for order 6 8 13 4 
 
 Paid for order 010 050 
 
 Copy and service 036 036 
 
 Paid amending biU 10 10 
 
 Amending print of bill, where no reprint . . .068 13 4 
 
 Paid stamp 010 050 
 
 Service on defendant's agent . . . . . .026 026 
 
 Instructions for interrogatories to amended bill . .068 13 4 
 
 Drawing same, fourteen folios . . . . . . 14 14 
 
 Attending Mr. therewith to settle . . .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 136 136 
 
 Ingrossing interrogatories [before 1861] . . . .070 070 
 
 Paid for parchment 050 050 
 
 Copy for service 048 048 
 
 Attending sealing 068 068 
 
 Paid stamp 010 050 
 
 Service thereof oa defendant's agent . . . .026 026 
 
 Paid for copy answer to amended bill, thirty-four folios H 11 4 11 4 
 
 * See general directions, p. 427 ; and as to copies generally, ante, p. 406. 
 
 t See 40tli Consolidated Order, r. 32, ante, p. 853. t See as to term fees, ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
 § When no fee is paid to counsel on a conference no charge can be allowed to the solicitor for attend- 
 ing him, ante, p. 354. !| As to costs of amending bill, see ante pp. 24^27. 
 1[ If printed, see general directions, ante, p. 428. 
 
•or S( 
 
 ale. 
 
 Higlier Scale. 
 
 ). 1,1857. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 s. 
 
 (/. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 11 
 
 4 
 
 11 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 4 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 ^0 6 8 
 
 3 
 
 « 
 
 13 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 BILL OF COSTS OF PLAINTIFF. 431 
 
 Stamp ^ 
 
 Close copy *....".]'' n 
 
 Perusing same- ' ' " 
 
 K exceeding- forty folios, per folio . '. '. ' ] 
 Amending print of biU for coimsel . . ' [ [ q 
 Attending .Mr. with papers to advise on 
 
 suincieucy of answer t 
 
 Paid his fee and clerli ' j 
 
 Am/Kut ISth. — Preparing replication, and attending to file 
 
 Notice thereof, copy and service 
 
 Drawing and fair copy notice of Plaintifi's desire that the 
 
 evidence in this cause should be taken by affidavit, and 
 
 service thereof 026 026 
 
 Journey to _ _ , and attendance on several 
 
 witnesses, and obtaining their testimony as to ; 
 
 engaged the whole of three days 6 6 6 6 
 
 Paid travelling expenses (as paid) ..... 
 
 Term fee, &c. J .' .' 15 15 
 
 Country 6 8 
 
 Michaelmas Term, 186 . 
 
 Nov. 5th. — Attending summons for production of documents 
 
 by plaintiff, and order made § 13 
 
 Close copy minutes (if made) . . . . . .01 
 
 Notice to settle (each solicitor) 2 
 
 Attending settling 6 
 
 Attending to pass order . . . . . . .06 
 
 Notice to pass (each solicitor) 2 
 
 Paid for summons for the production of documents by the 
 
 defendants .01 
 
 Preparing and attending to issue same . . . .06 
 
 Copy for the Judge 2 
 
 Copy for service, and service thereof . . • . .04 
 Attending summons order made. for production . . 13 
 
 Close copy minutes (if made) 1 
 
 Notice to settle (each solicitor) 2 
 
 Attending settling . . . . . . . .06 
 
 Paid for order 10 
 
 Notice to pass same . ..... 2 
 
 Attending passing 6 
 
 Copy and service . . . . . . . .02 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of plaintifT as to documents . 6 
 Drawing same, three folios . . . . . .03 
 
 Ingrossing . . . . . . . . .01 
 
 Attending him to be sworn thereto 6 
 
 Paid Commissioner's fee (country) . . . .02 
 
 Paid filing same 2 
 
 Paid for office copy 1 
 
 Notice of filing 2 
 
 * Ante, D. 427. t Ante, p. 353. t Ante, p. 357, 410. 
 
 As to the <»st); of inspection of documents when it takes place at the Solicitor's Ofiice, see ante, p. 357. 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 G 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
432 
 
 rOKMS OF BILLS OF COSTS. 
 
 e for preparing each 
 
 Evidence.* 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. 0. 
 
 Drawing same, twenty-one folios 
 
 Fee to counsel to settle * 
 
 Attending Hm 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. D. 
 
 Drawing same, ten folios 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. F. 
 
 Drawing same, fourteen folios 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. H. 
 
 Drawing same, four folios t 
 
 Ingrossing affidavit of Mr. C, twenty-one folios % 
 
 The like of Mr. D., ten folios . 
 
 The like of Mr. F., fourteen folios 
 
 The like of Mr. H., four folios 
 
 If exhibits to any affidavit, charg 
 
 exhibit ......... 
 
 And paid Commissioner marking each exhibit 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. M. verifying letter . 
 
 Drawing same, two folios 
 
 Ingrossing ......... 
 
 Attending deponent to be sworn thereto .... 
 
 Paid oath (country) ....... 
 
 Marking exhibit 
 
 Paid Commissioner marking ..... 
 
 Paid filing . . . . . 
 
 Attending deponent, Mr. C, to be sworn to his affidavit . 
 
 Paid oath 
 
 The like Mr. D., and paid oath 
 
 The like, Mr. H. _ . 
 
 Paid for office copies of five affidavits, folios 21, 10, 14, 4 
 and 2=51 
 
 Drawing and fair copy instructions for Mr. to advise 
 as to sufficiency of evidences 
 
 Attending him therewith ...... 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk ....... 
 
 Copy opinion for the country ...... 
 
 Paid for copies of defendant's affidavits, in all forty-six 
 folios .......... 
 
 Close copies ......... 
 
 Perusing sa ■ e 4d per folio ...... 
 
 Dec. I^rcl.- — Defendant's agent having served summons to 
 appoint a Commissioner to cross-examine the witnesses, 
 attending, conferring with him thereon, and arranging 
 that same should stand over, in consequence of the time 
 for taking evidence being obliged to be enlarged . 
 
 Paid for summons to enlarge time for taking evidence 
 
 Preparing and attending to issue 
 
 Copy for the Judge 
 
 Copy for service, and service thereof . . . . 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 I, 1857. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 & 
 
 5. 
 
 <i. 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 * As to the costs of having affidavits settled by counsel, see ante, p. 353. 
 
 t See General Directions, as to printed evidence and instructions (or affidavits. 
 
 % It affidavits settled by counsel (see ante, p. 353), insert the fee paid, and attending him 6s Sd. 
 
 § See iOth Cons. Ord. r. 82, ante, p. 353. 
 
plaintiffs' costs of suit. 433 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1,1857. Feb. 1,1867. 
 
 Attending same, order made 1) 6 8 6 8 
 
 Attending for order and entering . . . ' " 6 8 fi 8 
 
 Paid for order _" ioiO 050 
 
 Journey to for the purpose of going with plaintiff 
 
 through affidavits filed by defendants, and of obtaining 
 
 fresh evidence, (^two days) 440 440 
 
 Travelling expenses (as paid)* ....'. 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c '. \ ." 15 15 
 
 Coimtry 068 
 
 Mlanj Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of I. W 6 8 6 8 
 
 Dravring same, fourteen folios 14 14 
 
 Fee to Mr. to settle 136 136 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Ingrossing _ 048 048 
 
 Attending him to be sworn .068 068 
 
 Paid oath (country) , 026 026 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 048 048 
 
 The like charges for affidavit of Mrs. C, fourteen folios . 
 Paid defendant's agent for copy further affidavits of P.S., 
 
 eight and five foUos 044 044 
 
 Perusing same, id. per folio 044 044 
 
 Close copy 044 044 
 
 Attending simunons to appoint Examiner, same adjourned 
 for plaintiff to satisfy himself as to the proposed 
 
 Examiner's fitness 068 068 
 
 Feb. 21 — ^Attending defendant's agent to ascertain if he 
 intended attending by coimsel, and conferring as to 
 carrying out the examination, and writing into the 
 
 country fully thereon 068 068 
 
 Drawing, and fair copy notice to defendant's agent to 
 produce docmnents according to the order . . .026 026 
 
 Service thereof .026 026 
 
 23Td. — Attending adjourned smnmons, Examiner appointed 6 8 6 8 
 
 Attending to pass order .068 13 4 
 
 Notice to pass ...026 026 
 
 Brief copy affidavits to prepare for the cross-examination, 
 
 in all 138 folios, 14 sheets 268 268 
 
 jVmending print of bill for examiner . . . .068 13 4 
 
 2oth. — Attending defendant's agent for information as to 
 commencement of cross-examination, and arranging for 
 same to commence on Tuesday next, and writing into 
 the country thereon . . . .. ..068 068 
 
 Journey to attending cross-examination of plaintiff 
 
 and his witnesses, three daysj: 6 6 6 6 
 
 Travelling expenses (as paid) 
 
 Attending to bespeak certificate of pleadings filed . .068 068 
 
 • As to charges for solicitors' journeys, see anle, p. 351. t See ante, pp. 357, 410. 
 
 t Seeomfe.p. 357. 
 
 F F 
 
434 
 
 plaintiffs' costs of suit. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Paid for certificate 4 
 
 Attending to set down cause . . . _ . . .068 
 Praecipe and preparing subpoena to hear judgment, and 
 
 attending issuing 6 8 
 
 Paid stamp 050 
 
 Copy and service . . . . . • ■ .026 
 
 Paid for office copy depositions, forty-five folios* . 15 
 
 No perusal or close copy ....... 
 
 Affidavit of service of subpcBua to hear judgment . .040 
 Paid oath \s. M., filing 2s. Qd., and office copy Is. 4J. _ . 5 4 
 Mgrch 22nd. — Amending two prints of hiU for the Vice- 
 
 Chancellor, each 6 8 
 
 Attending his Honor's Secretary therewith . . .068 
 
 Term fee,t &c 15 
 
 Country ,........• 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1, 1867. 
 
 * 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Emter Term, 186 . 
 
 April. — Instructions for brief (J) 
 
 Two brief copies of plaintiff's and defendant's affidavits, 
 
 in all 138 folios, fourteen sheets each . 
 The like of exhibits, six sheets each 
 The like of depositions, five sheets each . 
 Amending print of bill for senior counsel 
 Drawing observations,§ three sheets 
 Two fair copies for counsel .... 
 One copy of will to accompany, per folio (copy previously 
 
 charged) 
 
 1 1 Fee to Mr. with brief, and clerk 
 
 Attending him ...... 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk 
 
 Attending him 
 
 Fee to Mr. with brief and clerk . 
 
 Attending him ...... 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk 
 
 Attending him 
 
 Attending consultation 
 
 Drawing request to set down cause and attending Registrar 
 
 therewith ....... 
 
 Notice ........ 
 
 28iA. — Attending Court, cause in paper, not called on 
 
 2.Qth. — Attending Court, decree made 
 
 Or, according to circumstances 
 
 Attending Registrar with papers to bespeak minutes 
 
 Close copy minutes, three sides 
 
 Term fee i] and letters 
 
 Country 
 
 * Printed from May 16, 1S62, see General Directions, and ante, p. 41G. 
 
 t Before March 1860 
 
 Alter „ 
 
 § As to costs of observations for counsel, see ante, p. 354. 
 
 II As to tbe costs of employing more than one counsel, see ante, p. 352. 
 
 t Ante, pp. 357, 410. 
 
 110 
 
 2 2 
 
 4 13 
 
 4 
 
 4 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 4 4 
 
 2 9 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 9 6 
 6 8 
 
 1 3 
 6 
 13 
 
 6 
 8 
 4 
 
 13 6 
 6 8 
 13 4 
 
 6 
 2 
 6 
 13 
 
 6 
 1 
 15 
 
 8 
 6 
 8 
 4 
 
 8 
 6 
 
 
 6 8 
 2 6 
 10 
 110 
 2 2 
 6 8 
 16 
 15 
 6 8 
 
 t See ante, 
 110 
 1 1 
 
 pp. '357, 410. 
 
 1 1 
 
 2 2 
 
PLxVINTIFFS' COSTS OF SUIT. 
 
 435 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Attending settling minutes* 
 
 Or at Taxing Master's discretion, not to exceed 
 
 Notice to settle (each solicitor) 
 
 Jitue. — Paid for decree ....... 
 
 Notice to pass (each, solicitor) 
 
 Attending passing 
 
 Copy order for chambers, and certifying same, per folio . 
 Preparing summons to consider decree, and attending to 
 
 get same sealed 
 
 Stamp thereon 
 
 Copy to leave in chambers 
 
 Copy for service 
 
 Service thereof on each solicitor ..... 
 Attending summons, directions given, and time fixed for 
 
 affidavits to be filed, and those in reply 
 
 Low 
 Feb 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 er Scale. 
 1, 1S57. 
 s. d. 
 
 6 8 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1S57. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 13 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 IS 4 13 4 
 
 (Here introduce the usual and common charges for instructions for drawing 
 and ingrossing, &c., the affidavits necessary in support of the various 
 inquiries, charging for all copies of affidavits taken from the opposite 
 party (as paid). Close copies where necessary, and perusing all special 
 affidavits tiled by any opposing party id. per folio, and attending each 
 adjourned simimons upon the inquiries from time to time as may be 
 necessary, such sum as the chief clerk shall certify ; but in the absence 
 of any certificate, charging onlj' 6s. Sd. for each attendance according to 
 circumstances, and for drawing every statement and fair copy thereof 
 necessary, or directed to be brought in by the chief clerk, the sum of 
 Is. M. per folio, under the higher scale ; and 8c?. under the lower scale. 
 
 Copy certificate, per folio 
 
 Close copy,t per folio 
 
 Attending settling same . 
 
 Ingrossing certificate, per folio 
 
 Paid for stamp 
 
 Attending certificate signed 
 
 Paid for office copy, per folio 
 
 Attending bespeaiiiig and for same . 
 
 Drawing request, and attending setting down cause 
 
 Notice thereof 
 
 Drawing brief on further directions (four sheets), 6s. Sd. 
 
 per sheet .... 
 Fair copy (per sheet, 3s. 4(Z.) . 
 Drawing observations,! per sheet 
 Fair copy .... 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk (as paid). 
 
 (If two counsel,§ charge additional fair copy brief 
 attendance, and fee paid to additional counsel.) 
 
 » See General Directions, ante, p. 427. t Ante, p. 427. 
 
 + A q t^ oh<«>rvations for counsel, see ante, p. 354. 
 
 5 if to thfSS where the costs of employing more than one counsel will be allowed, see ante, p. 352. 
 
 F F 2 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 & s. 
 
 d. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 1 6 
 
 8 
 
 16 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 6 8 
 3 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 at the same rate, and 
 
436 plaintiffs' costs — SPECIAL INJUNCTION. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Attending Court, order made 13 4 
 
 Attending Registrar witli papers 6 8 
 
 Close copy minutes, per side . . . . . .006 
 
 Notice to settle 2 6 
 
 Attending settling * 6 8 
 
 Paid for order 10 
 
 Notice to pass 036 
 
 Attending passing . . . . . . . .068 
 
 Attending to get proper Taxing Master marked . .068 
 
 Copy order to leave, per folio 4 
 
 Drawing bill of costs and copy, folio 118 (Qd. per folio) . 3 18 8 
 Warrant on leaving copy, and service . . . .036 
 
 The like to taxf 3 6 
 
 Attending taxing 1 13 4 
 
 Ingrossing certificate 2 
 
 Paid for stamp . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 Attending to file 6 8 
 
 Paid for ofiice copy 2 
 
 Term fee,J &c 15 
 
 Country .......... 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 ., 1857. 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 3 18 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Of filing Bill, Sfc. — On application for Special Injunction.^ — Ore application to 
 dissolve Special Injunction, and of Motion submitting to Decree after Answers 
 filed. 
 
 in (E^antfrg. 
 
 Between, &c. 
 
 The Sill of Costs of the above-named Plaintiff's, to be taxed under the order bearing 
 date the day of 
 
 Easter Term, 186 
 
 April. — Instructions for bUl || . 
 
 Drawing same, flfty-eiglit folios 
 
 Attending llr. vpith same to settle 
 
 Paid Ms fee and clerk .... 
 
 Pair copy bill for printer .... 
 
 Examining and correcting proof sbeet 
 
 Attending printer tberewitn .... 
 
 Stamps,D filing bill and copies, two defendants 
 
 Paid printer' s bill (as paid), deducting amount received 
 from defendants for copies. 
 
 Two copies, and services of bill ..... 
 
 Instructions for interrogatories for examination of defen- 
 dants 
 
 Drawing same, thirty-eigbt folios 
 
 Pee to counsel to settle 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1S57. 
 
 Feb. 1, 18S7. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 13 4 
 
 2 2 
 
 2 18 
 
 2 18 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 3 5 6 
 
 3 5 6 
 
 19 4 
 
 19 4 
 
 9 8 
 
 9 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 12 
 
 1 10 
 
 5 5 
 
 6 8 
 
 1 18 
 
 2 4 6 
 
 13 4 
 
 1 18 
 
 2 4 6 
 
 * See General Directions, anie, p. 427. t Ante, pp. 340, 341. 
 
 § See as to costs of motions for injunctions, anie. p. 32, and seqq. 
 
 II See General Directions, ante, p. 426. % See ante, p. 428, note %. 
 
 t Ante, pp. 357, 410. 
 
plaintiffs' costs— special injunction. 437 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Ingrossing (6rf. per folio,) before 1861 . . . . 19 19 
 
 Paid for paxeliment 050 050 
 
 Copy to serve 12 8 12 8 
 
 Attending writ and record clerk's office examining same .068 068 
 
 Paid for stamp* 010 050 
 
 Service thereof 026 026 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of plaintiff to apply for injunction 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, forty-five folios 2 5 2 5 
 
 Ingrossing 15 15 
 
 Attending him to he sworn 068 068 
 
 Paid oath, and filing 040 040 
 
 Paid for office copy 15 15 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, nine folios 090 090 
 
 Ingrossing 030 030 
 
 Attending him to he sworn, and paid oath , . .082 082 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 030 030 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, six folios 060 060 
 
 Ingrossing 020 020 
 
 Attending him to he sworn . . , . . .068 068 
 
 Paid oath 016 016 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 020 020 
 
 Marking ten exhibits referred to in the several affidavits . 10 10 
 
 Paid Commissioner marking same as exhibits , . . 10 10 
 
 (The like charges in the same proportion for other deponents' affidavits — 
 
 folios 8, 3, and 3 respectively.) 
 (No charge at the Record Office for marking exhibits.) 
 
 Instructions for brief, injunction cause . . . . 13 4 110 
 Two brief copies of the ahove affidavits, seventy-four folios 
 
 (8 B.S. each) 2 13 4 2 13 4 
 
 Two copies of the whole of the exhibits referred to in the 
 
 several affidavits (8 B.S. each) 2 13 4 2 13 4 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 6 8 13 4 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk . . . . . . . 11 11 
 
 Attending him, and appointing consultation t • ■ .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 296 296 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 6 8 13 4 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk . . . . . . . 6 11 6 11 
 
 Attending him, and appointing consultation . . ,068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 136 136 
 
 Attending consultationf 13 4 13 4 
 
 Attending Court, injunction granted . . . . 13 4 110 
 
 Or according to circumstances not to exceed ... 220 
 
 Instructions for further affidavit of plaintiff . . .068 G 8 
 
 Drawing same, eight folios 080 080 
 
 Ingrossing 028 028 
 
 * See ante, p. 429, note. t Ante, p. 364. 
 
438 plaintiffs' costs— special injunction. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Attending liini to te sworn thereto 6 8 
 
 Paid oath and filing 4 
 
 Paid for oflice copy 2 8 
 
 Two hrief copies for counsel (2 B.S.) . . . .068 
 Attending bespeaking, and for certificate of bill filed .068 
 
 Paid for same 040 
 
 Attending the Registrar, settling minutes of order . .068 
 Or at Taxing Master's discretion, not to exceed . .110 
 Two copies for service on defendants, five folios each ,034 
 Person^, service on two defendants, each . . . .050 
 
 Paid for order granting injunction 10 
 
 Attending passing 6 8 
 
 Dravring and ingrossing injunction and docket . . . 10 
 
 Or, perfolio 014 
 
 Parchment . . . . . . . . .030 
 
 Paid sealing 100 
 
 Two copies for service, per folio . . . . .004 
 Personal service thereof on two defendants, each . .050 
 Affidavit of service (see Charges). 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 [, 1857. 
 
 & 
 
 5. 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 Motion to Dissolve. 
 
 Having received notice of motion to move to dissolve 
 
 injunction, two copies thereof for counsel 
 
 Or per folio 
 
 Drawing observations,* and two copies, one sheet 
 Attending Mr. with his brief 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 
 
 24<A. — Attending Court, motion not called on . 
 
 26iA. — Attending Court, motion fixed to come on to-morrow 
 
 27i!A. — Attending Court, defendant's counsel stated that it 
 
 would be impossible to be ready before Saturday, and 
 
 he would undertake to hand over copies of affidavits 
 
 twenty-four hours before motion brought on 
 Paid for copies affidavits filed in support of motion to 
 
 dissolve, folios thirty-eight, twenty-four, twenty-one, 
 
 and eleven — total ninety-fouif 
 Perusing same (4(^. per folio) . 
 Close copy ...... 
 
 Two brief copies for counsel (10 B.S. each) 
 Instructions for affidavit of plaintiff' in reply 
 Drawing same, fourteen folios 
 
 If settled by counsel J .... 
 
 Attending Mr. therewith to settle 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk .... 
 
 Ingrossing ...... 
 
 Attending him to be sworn 
 
 Paid oath and filing .... 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 4 13 4 
 
 1 11 
 
 4 
 
 1 11 
 
 4 
 
 1 11 
 
 4 
 
 1 11 
 
 4 
 
 1 11 
 
 4 
 
 1 11 
 
 4 
 
 8 6 
 
 8 
 
 3 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 8 
 
 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 * As to costs of observations for counsel, see ante, p. 354. 
 
 t As to printed evidence, see General Directions, ante, p. 428. 
 
 i As to costs incurred in consequence of affidavits being settled by counsel, see ante, p. 355, 
 
PLAINTIFFS' COSTS— SPECIAL INJUNCTION. 
 
 439 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Peb. 1, 1867. 
 
 Paid for office copy 4 
 
 Instructions for fiijtlier affidavit of Mr. ' '. .068 
 
 Drawing same, seven folios 7 
 
 Ingi-ossing !o24 
 
 Attending him to be sworn 6 8 
 
 Paid oath and filing 4 
 
 Paid for office copy 2 4 
 
 Instructions for affida\T.t of Mr. . . . .068 
 
 Drawing same, forty-eight folios 2 8 
 
 Ingrossing 16 
 
 If exhibits, marking exhibits each 10 
 
 Attending him to be sworn 6 8 
 
 Paid oath 016 
 
 Paid marking, each exhibit 10 
 
 Paid filing 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 16 
 
 Two brief copies of the above, further affidavits, sixty-nine 
 
 folios (seven sheets each) 2 6 8 
 
 Drawing observations by way of reference to exhibits 
 
 (2B.S.)* 
 
 Two copies for counsel ....... 
 
 Defendant's solicitor having handed over at counsel's 
 
 request copies of his exhibits, two brief copies for coimsel 
 
 (6 B.S. each) 2 
 
 Attending JNIr. with further affidavits, &c. .068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 3 5 6 
 
 Paid him consultation feef 2 9 6 
 
 Attending him 6 8 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief further affidavits .068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 2 4 6 
 
 Paid him consultation feef 13 6 
 
 Attending him 6 8 
 
 Attending consultationf . . . . . . . 13 4 
 
 5th. — Attending Court, motion deferred till Friday . .068 
 
 7th. — Attending Court, motion part heard . . . 13 4 
 8th. — Attending Court, motion dismissed, costs to be costs 
 
 in the causej 13 4 
 
 Or according to circumstances not to exceed . 
 
 Term fee,§ letters, &c 15 
 
 In country cases 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 18 
 
 .')7. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 rf. 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 8 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 2 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 3 5 
 
 6 
 
 2 9 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Trmity 7erm, 186 . 
 
 Paid for order of 8th May, dismissing defendant's motion 
 
 to dissolve 10 10 
 
 Attending passing 6 8 13 
 
 Paid for printed copy answer of defendant, forty-five 
 
 foliosll . 15 15 
 
 Perusing same 6 8 15 
 
 Paid for printed copy answer of defendant, 102 foliosjl .114 1 14 
 
 • As to coats of observations for couns<#., see ante, p. 364. t ^"le, p. 3-54. 
 
 t Ante, pp. 31-34. § Ante, pp. 357, 410. 
 
 II See General Directions as to printed answer, and ante, p. 428. 
 
440 plaintiffs' costs — SPECIAL INJUNCTIOlSr. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higlier Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 18S7. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 & s. d. £ J. d. 
 
 Peruaing same 068 114 
 
 Stamp for each copy 060 050 
 
 On Motion suhmitting to Decree. 
 
 June 22nd. — ^Having been served -with notice of motion of 
 
 defendant's intention to submit to decree, two copies for 
 
 counsel 020 020 
 
 Drawing observations, and two fair copies* (one sbeet each) 13 4 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid bis fee and clerk 246 246 
 
 Paid him consultation fee* 296 296 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 136 136 
 
 Paid him consultation fee* 136 136 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Attending consultation 13 4 13 4 
 
 24ih. — ^Attending Court, motion ordered according to the 
 
 prayer of the bUl 13 4 13 4 
 
 Or according to circumstances not to exceed . . 110 
 
 Attendina- Eegistrar with papers bespeaking minutes ,068 068 
 
 Minutes . . . . . . . . . .030 030 
 
 Attending settling minutes"|" 068 13 4 
 
 Notice to settle 026 026 
 
 Paid for order 100 300 
 
 Notice to pass 026 026 
 
 Attending passing 068 13 4 
 
 (As to charges relating to inquiries under a decree, see pp. 26 and 45, and 
 costs, under administration summons.) 
 
 Copy for Taxing Master, per folio .. . . .004 004 
 
 Attending to get Master in rotation marked . . .068 068 
 
 Drawingbillof costs and copy, fifty-six folios (8(?. per folio) 1 17 4 1 17 4 
 
 Warrant on leaving copy, and service . . . .036 056 
 
 Warrant to tax, copy and servicej 3 6 5 6 
 
 Attending taxing 100 100 
 
 Paid for certificate 10 100 
 
 Transcribing 020 020 
 
 Attending to file 068 068 
 
 Paid for office copy 020 020 
 
 Term fee,§ letters, &c 15 15 
 
 Country case 068 
 
 (See also general directions as to term fees, correspondence, postages, &c.) 
 
 * ATite, p. 354. t See General Directions, ante, 427. 
 
 } Ante, pp. 340, 341. § Ante, p. 357,410. 
 
plaintiffs' costs— suit and compromise. 
 
 441 
 
 PhiMff's Costs of ming Ml-Paying Mmiey into Court under Summms at 
 thambers—Amendment ofBM-Inspectimi ofJDocummts in Plaintiff's possession 
 by Defendant, and Petition on Compromise of Suit. 
 
 _- , „ Lower Scale. 
 
 MiOster Term, 186 . ret. i, 1867. 
 
 Instructions for bill* 13 4 
 
 Drawing same, ninety-eight folios . . '. '. * 4 18 
 
 Paid Mr. to settle ! 4 6 6 
 
 Attending him . . . . _ _ _ 6 8 
 
 Attending Mr. to appoint conference on biU .0 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 16 
 
 Attending conference t . . . . \ \ ! 13 4 
 Fair copy biU for printer {M. per folio) . . ." ." 1 12 8 
 
 Attending him with same ! 6 8 
 
 Ex amining proof of bill and correcting proof sheet (2d 
 
 per foUo) 16 4 
 
 Drawing retamer to Mr. and attending to retain 
 
 himj . . . . . , _ _ _ .068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk .13 6 
 
 Certificate of fees being payable upon lower scale of fees .050 
 
 Paid for stamp, filing biU§ 10 
 
 Attending sealing two copies of biU . . . .068 
 
 Paid stamps . . . . . . . . .020 
 
 Paid printer's bill (as paid), deducting amount received 
 of defendants ........ 
 
 Clerk's journey to , serving one defendant 
 
 with copy bUl, and afterwards to , serving 
 
 the other defendant, out two days . . . .330 
 
 Paid expenses (as paid). 
 
 Instructions for interrogatories 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, seventy-six folios 3 16 
 
 Fee to Mr. to peruse and settle . . . .466 
 
 Attending him 6 8 
 
 Ingrossing same (before 1861) • . . . . 1 18 
 
 Paid for parchment 10 
 
 Copy for service 15 4 
 
 Attending examining same 6 8 
 
 Paid stamp§ 010 
 
 Service thereof 2 6 
 
 Drawing consent to answer of defendants being taken with 
 
 oath, and attending defendant's solicitor therewith .068 
 
 Term fee, II letters, and messengers 15 
 
 Country 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 4 18 
 
 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 6 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 12 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 3 16 
 
 
 
 4 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 18 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 1 5 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 May 28th. — ^Attending summons for time to answer .068 06 
 
 June 25th. — ^Attending simimons for further time, order 
 made, costs to be costs in the cause . . . .068 
 
 6 
 
 * See General Directions, ante, p. 426. 
 t As to retaining fees, ante, see p. 353. 
 Mnte, pp. 357, 410. 
 
 t See ante, p. 3.54. 
 
 § Ante, note t to p. 429. 
 
442 
 
 plaintiffs' costs— suit and compromise. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Veh. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Paid for copy affidavit thereon, five folios . . .018 
 
 Perusing 018 
 
 Preparing summons to pay money into Court, and attending 
 
 to get same sealed 6 8 
 
 Paid stamp .010 
 
 Copy summons to leave at chambers . . . .020 
 
 Copy and service on defendant's solicitors . . .046 
 July 8th. — ^Attending thereon, order made . . . 13 4 
 
 Close copy minutes (if made) 10 
 
 Attending settling minutes . . . . . .068 
 
 Notice to settle 2 6 
 
 Paid for order 10 
 
 Notice to pass 2 6 
 
 Attending passing . . . . . . . .068 
 
 Drawing request for investment of cash . . . .026 
 
 Attending bespeaking investment of cash . . .068 
 
 Attending plaintiff, obtaining cheque for cash, and after- 
 wards attending cashing same . . . . .068 
 
 24iA. — Attending bespeaking direction for payment in of 
 cash, and afterwards to the Bank, passing same in, and 
 filing receipt with Accountant-General, and afterwards 
 
 procuring office copy * 13 4 
 
 Paid for office copy 14 
 
 Paid for printed copy answer, 316 folios . . . .554 
 
 Stamp 050 
 
 Perusing answer . . . . . . . .068 
 
 Attending counsel to advise on evidence . . .068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk. 
 
 Term fee,t letters, and messenger 15 
 
 Country .......... 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1, 1857. 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 (1. 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 4 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 6 5 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 5 6 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Michaelmas Term, 186 . 
 
 Drawing and fair copy observations on answer of defendants 
 
 and fair copy, one sheet 
 
 Paid Mr. to advise on sufficiency of answer J . 
 Attending him 
 
 (Amendment of Bill. §) 
 
 Preparing summons to amend bill and attending thereon . 
 Paid stamp ...... 
 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor . 
 
 Copy and service thereof 
 
 Jan. 9th. — ^Attending summons, order made 
 
 Paid for same 
 
 Attending to draw up and enter same 
 Instructions for amended bill . 
 Dravsdng amendments, nineteen folios 
 Paid Mr. to peruse and settle 
 Attending him 
 
 3 6 
 
 6 
 
 3 -5 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 * It above tMs sum and under higher scale, see General Directions, 428, 429. t Ante, -pp. SS7,iW. 
 
 t See Cons. Ord. 40, r. 32, ante, p. 353, § As to costs of amendment of bin generally, see ante, p. 24, 
 
plaintiffs' costs— suit and compromise. 
 
 443 
 
 Fair copy for tlie printer (4(7. per folio) . . . , 
 
 Attending Mm therewitli 
 
 Examining proof (2d. per folio) .... 
 Paid printer's bill (deducting amount received of de- 
 fendants) 
 
 Term fee,* letters, and messengers .... 
 Country 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 £ 
 
 6 
 6 
 3 
 
 d. 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 
 
 d. 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 6 
 
 Hilari/ Term, 186 . 
 
 Paid filing amended bill 10 
 
 Paid stamping two copies for service . . . .01 
 Amending two copies of same for services wbere no reprint 13 
 
 Service thereof, each solicitor 2 
 
 Feb. Ufh. — Attending summons for time to answer, order 
 
 made for three weelss . . . . . . .06 
 
 Paid for office copy, affidavit in support of summons for 
 
 furtber time to answer, seven folios . . . .02 
 
 Perusing 2 
 
 March 4dh. — Attending same, order made for a fortnight . 6 
 Paid for copy affidavit of defendant in support of summons 
 
 for production of documents, ten folios . . .03 
 
 Perusing . . . . . . . . .03 
 
 Attending summons, order made 13 
 
 Instructions for affidavit as to documents . . .06 
 
 Drawing same, nineteenfolios 19 
 
 Ingrossing 6 
 
 Attending plaintifiF to be sworn 6 
 
 Paid oath and filing 4 
 
 Paid for office copy 6 
 
 Letter to defendant's solicitors that documents open for 
 
 their inspection . . . . . . . .03 
 
 22»i. — Attending inspection, six hours t . • • .20 
 23rd. — The like this day, five hours . . . , 1 13 
 
 Termfee,J letters, &c 15 
 
 Country 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 16 8 
 
 2 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 4 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 3 4 
 
 3 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 6 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 6 4 
 
 3. 6 
 2 
 
 1 13 4 
 15 
 6 8 
 
 Triniti/ Term, 186 . 
 Several attendances on defendant's solicitors upon terms, 
 
 when it was ultimately determined to compromise the 
 
 suit, and divide the amount in Court 
 Instructions for petition accordingly § 
 Drawing same, ninety folios 
 Ingrossing petition . 
 Paid stamping 
 Attending presenting 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor . 
 Copy for counsel 
 Attending him therewith 
 Paid his fee and clerk 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 4 10 
 
 
 
 4 10 
 
 
 
 1 10 
 
 
 
 1 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 10 
 
 
 
 1 10 
 
 
 
 1 10 
 
 
 
 1 10 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 * Ante, pp. 3i]7, 410. 
 % Ante, pp. 357,410. 
 
 t As to costa nspection of documents, ante, p, 357. 
 § See General Directions, ante, p. 426 and segq. 
 
444 plaintiffs' costs — enquieies tjndee deckbe and oedee. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1,1867. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 * s. («.- £ s. d. 
 
 July 7th. — Attending Court, petition teard and order 
 
 made * 13 4 110 
 
 Or according to circumstances not to exceed, per diem . 2 2 
 
 Close copy minutes 016 016 
 
 Notice to settle 026 026 
 
 Attending settling 068 13 4 
 
 Or at taxing master's discretion not to exceed . .110 3 3 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Notice to pass 026 026 
 
 Attending passing 068 13 4 
 
 Attending bespeaking cheque, and afterwards witli plaintiff 
 
 identifying him 068 068 
 
 Drawing costs (if taxed), see pp. 14 and 28. 
 
 (See general direction as to term fees, special correspondence, and postages, &c.) 
 (As to charges for inquiries directed under decree, see pp. 26 and 45, and costs, 
 under administration suit.) 
 
 Costs of Enquiries directed by Decree — Preliminary as to Next of Kin — Advertise- 
 ment for Creditors, Sfc. — Certificate — Fwther Directions, and Taxation of 
 Costs. 
 
 Easter Term, 186 . 
 
 Copy decree for Vice-Chancellor, per folio . . .004 004 
 
 Preparing summons to consider decree, and attending Vice- 
 Chancellor therewith 068 068 
 
 Paid stamp 010 030 
 
 Copy for Vice-Chancellor 020 020 
 
 Copy and service on defendant's solicitor . . . .046 046 
 
 (The same charge on each solicitor engaged.) 
 
 Attending summons, directions given as to parties to attend, 
 preliminary enqmries to be answered first, and time 
 fixed for affidavits to be brought in . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 If preliminary enquiries ordered as to next of kin 
 
 Attending at 
 
 Searching for and examining certificate of marriage of 
 
 and 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for certificate ■ . .026 026 
 
 Attending at , to obtain certificate of baptism 
 
 of , and comparing same with original . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for certificate 026 026 
 
 Attending at other places to obtain certificates of other children, and com- 
 paring same with original (the same charge). 
 
 Paid for same (as paid). 
 
 . Instructions for affidavit in support 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, six folios 060 060 
 
 Ingrossing 020 020 
 
 Attending plaintiff thereon when he gave the name of the 
 
 party who would depose to the affidavit and prove the 
 
 necessary identity 068 068 
 
 * See General Directions, ante, p. 420 and seqq. 
 
plaintiffs' costs — ENQUIRIES UNDEE DECREE AND ORDER. 445 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 Peb. 1,1857. Peb. 1, 1S57. 
 
 Writing Mr. _ with the affidavit accordingly, 
 
 and giving liini full directions to be sworn thereto .050 050 
 Writing him, acknowledging receipt of affidavit, and en- 
 closing stamps for Commissioner's fee . . . .036 036 
 Paid fee, 2s. 6d. ; and for each exhibit. Is. 
 
 Paid filing . 026026 
 
 Paid for office copy* 020 020 
 
 Drawing affidavit identifying parties named in 
 
 Certificates^ seven folios 070 070 
 
 Ingrossing 024 024 
 
 Attending to be sworn thereto 6 8 6 8 
 
 Marking three exhibits 030 030 
 
 Paid oath and marking exhibits 4 6 4 6 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy* 024 024 
 
 Notice of filing copy, and service 2 6 2 6 
 
 Attending adjourned summons, preliminary enquiries 
 satisfied, and advertisements directed to issue, and in- 
 quiries to be made 13 4 13 4 
 
 Preparing advertisement and attending to get same 
 
 approved and signed 068 13 4 
 
 Paid for stampt 10 
 
 Attending Gazette office with same 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid iuserrion, and for Gazette (as paid). 
 
 Copy for the Times . 010 010 
 
 Paid for two insertions (as paid). 
 
 CoYjioT DaUyKews . . . . . . .010 010 
 
 Paid for insertions and papers (as paid). 
 
 Copy for the Globe . . . . . . . .010 010 
 
 Paid for insertions and papers (as paid). 
 
 Attendances inserting same . . . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 If advertisements ordered for any other purpose, the same charges and pay- 
 ments as made. 
 
 If administration suit ....... 
 
 Paid for copy affidavit of executors. 
 
 Copy thereof, per foliof 004 004 
 
 Perusing same, per folio .004 004 
 
 Attending 3Ir. going through same, and taking 
 
 down his various objections to the payments made, and 
 
 instructions to oppose certain allowances . . .068 068 
 Attending adioumed summons, accounts partly proceeded 
 
 with . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Attending to search if anv claims entered, and afterwards 
 
 on dav of hearing, five iBled 10 6 ^^^ 
 
 For eveiy additional number, not exceeding five . _ . 10 6 110 
 Paid for office copy affidavit of in support of claim, 
 
 tenfolios n I t ?, t t 
 
 The like of eight folios ^?° ?, Z n 
 
 The like of twelve foUos ^ ^ « ^ c n 
 
 The like of fifteen folios 050 050 
 
 » See ante, p. 406. t See ante, p. 402, notes t and |1 ; p. 129, note t. 
 
446 plaintiffs' costs — ENQUIEIES ■UNDER DECREE AND ORDER. 
 
 The Uke of ■ 
 
 ■ seven folios 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £, s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 2 4 2 4 
 
 Attendances where necessary in relation to any of the claims made where the 
 same are disputed and the fee is not adequate. 
 
 Where other and general enquiries directed to he made, 
 
 charge 
 
 Instructions for affidavit ....... 
 
 Drawing same, per folio ....... 
 
 Ingrossing, per folio 
 
 Atteudiag to be sworn 
 
 Paid oath 
 
 Country case 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 If exhibits, marking each exhibit 
 
 Paid Commissioners for each exhibit . . . . 
 
 Paidfllmg 
 
 Paid for oifice copy (as paid) per folio .... 
 
 Notice of filing ........ 
 
 Drawing statements, as directed by chief clerk, and fair 
 
 copy, per folio 8 
 
 Paid for copy affidavits iiled by opposite party, per folio .004 
 Perusing same, per folio . . . . . . .004 
 
 Close copy* 004 
 
 Attendances upon the various enquiries, such charges as the 
 may allow upon each respective attendance.f 
 
 Copy certificate, per folio 
 Close copy 
 
 Attending settling same 
 Ingrossing, per folio 
 Paid for stamp 
 Attending to sign . 
 Paid for office copy, per folio 
 Attending bespeaking and for same 
 Drawing minutes of order, per folio 
 Instructions to counsel to settle, and attending him 
 Paid his fee and clerk (as paid) 
 Copy minutes for defendant's solicitor 
 Writing him with same and thereon 
 Copy certificate, and order for the Court, per folio 
 Attending leaving papers with judge 
 Drawing brief on further directions (according to length of 
 order and certificate excluding schedules) per sheet 
 
 Drawing observations, per sheet 
 
 Fair copyj 
 
 Attending setting down cause 6 8 
 
 Notice thereof 2 6 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief . . . .068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 3 5 6 
 
 Attending Court, order made upon minutes as drawn . 13 4 
 
 Close copy minutes (Qd. per side) 4 6 
 
 Notice to settle 2 6 
 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 6 8 
 
 3 4 
 
 3 6 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 14 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 chief clerk 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 6 8 
 
 3 4 
 
 3 6 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 3 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 3 5 6 
 
 13 4 
 
 4 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 ' See ante, p. 406. 
 
 t See Genera] Directions. 
 
 } See ante, p. 364. 
 
plaintiffs' costs— service of bill. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1,1857. 
 
 Attending settling 6 8 
 
 Or at Taxing Master's discretion not to exceed . .110 
 
 Paid for order 100 
 
 Notice to pass 026 
 
 Attending passing and entering 6 8 
 
 Copy order for Taxing Master, per folio . . . ! 4 
 Attending for certificate of proper Taxing Master . .068 
 Drawing costs and fair copy, per folio . . . .008 
 Summons on leaving copy and service . . . .036 
 
 Siunmons to tax, copy and service* 3 6 
 
 Attending taxing (66-. 8d. for every twenty-five folios, or 
 
 fractional part) 
 
 Paid for copy of defendant's costs, per folio . . .004 
 Attending taxing (see scale al)ove). 
 
 Paid for certificate 10 
 
 Transcribing 020 
 
 Attending filing 6 8 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c 15 
 
 Country .......... 
 
 447 
 
 High! 
 
 iv Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1, 1857. 
 
 £ 
 
 .1. 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 6 8 
 
 15 
 
 6 8 
 
 (Costs of service of bill upon defendants rvho are not required to a^jpear or answei-, 
 and of motion to enter memorandum of such service.) 
 
 Journey to serving defendant with copy 
 
 bill, according to distance 110 110 
 
 The like defendant at miles, and expenses .110 110 
 
 Paid fee, examining, and sealing same . . , .020 10 
 
 Attending 068 068 
 
 Drawing affidavits of service on both defendants, six folios 6 6 
 
 Paid oath 016 016 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 020 020 
 
 Instructions for counsel to move to enter memorandum of 
 
 service 026 026 
 
 Brief copy affidavits in support 3 4 3 4 
 
 Paid 5Ir. fee to move, and clerk . . .13 6 13 6 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Attending Court, order made 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Attending passing 068 13 4 
 
 Attending Writ and Record Clerks therewith, instructing 
 
 them to enter memorandum of same . . . .068 008 
 
 Paid . . 040 040 
 
 • See ante, pp. 349-1. 
 
 t Ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
448 
 
 plaintiffs' costs. 
 
 EXCEPTIONS. TO ANSWER.* 
 
 Plaintiff. 
 
 Instructions fo"r same 
 
 Drawing exceptions, per folio .... 
 
 Fee -to settle and sign . . . _ . 
 Fair copy to file, per folio . . . ■* . 
 Notice -of filing copy and service . < , ■•, 
 Attending Recard and Writ Clerks for-certiflcat«i 
 Paid for same ., . ., ■ ^ • .•'■•' 
 Attending.to Set dovm- exceptions'* ■ . .... • ." 
 
 Notice . .....'. . ... . ' . 
 
 Copy answer (if not printed) 'per folio 
 'Jhe like of exceptioris' . . 
 Attending Judge's secretary with, papers . 
 Brief exceptions for counsel .... 
 
 Attending Court, exceptions heard . 
 
 Or 
 
 Lower Scale, 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1,1857.' 
 
 Pfeb. 
 
 ., 1857, 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 . £ 
 
 «. d. 
 
 •0 13 4 
 
 -- 13 4 
 
 '0 1 Q 
 
 cr 
 
 1 
 
 -0-6 8 
 
 
 
 ■6 8 
 
 4- 
 
 • 
 
 .4 
 
 •0 2,. 6 
 
 
 
 2- 6 
 
 0. 6 8 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 O- 4:0 
 
 . 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 6 
 
 
 
 2 6 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 3 4 
 
 
 
 3 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 COSTS OF OVERRULINa PLEA OR DEMURRER.t 
 Plaintiff. 
 
 Paid for office copy demurrer . 
 Drawing petition to set down demurrer 
 Attending .... 
 Order ..... 
 Copy aiid service 
 Attending to set down demurrer 
 
 Notice 
 
 Afiidavit of service . 
 
 Copy demurrer, per sheet 
 
 Fee to counsel 
 
 Attending .... 
 
 Copy demurrer for Vice-Chancellor 
 
 2 prints of hUl for him 
 
 Copy order to set down demurrer 
 
 Attending secretary with same 
 
 Attending Court, demurrer overruled 
 
 Attending registrar with brief . 
 
 Attending to pass order . 
 
 Notice 
 
 Order 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 No observations allowed.^ 
 
 « As to costs oi exceptions to answers generallyj see ante, pp. 27-29. They must be expr^sly asked for 
 at the hearing of the exceptions, ante, p. 27. t Ante, pp. 18-23. 
 
 X See ante p. 354, and Emei,t v. Partridge, 2 2f. R. 232 ; 11 W.R. 715, there cited where tlie costs of 
 observations were disallowed. 
 
Lower Scale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. I,isri7. 
 
 Feb. 1,1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 ■€ s. d. 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 15 
 
 
 C 8 
 
 COSTS ON TETITION OF APPEAL. . 449 
 
 COSTS OF PLAI^'TIFFS OR RESPONDENTS ON PETITION OF 
 APPEAE * AGAINST DECREE -DISMISSED WITH COSTS. 
 
 Trill if;/ Term, 186 . 
 
 July VMi. — Paid for copy petition of appeal,- per folio 
 
 Tenn. fee,-j- appeal set "down " . 
 
 Cqimtry cases . '_ •..-""• ..... 
 
 ... • 
 ■ ' ' Michtiejinas Term, 186 , 
 
 Two brief copies of petition of ajipeal. (one sheet each) for 
 
 counsel . . . . '. ... . '. X)\.-Q 8 068 
 The like of decree (one sheet each) . . . . .:.0''6 8-068 
 Fee to Mr. with brief, and clerk. 
 
 Attending him . . . . - . . . .'• 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk . . . .206 296 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Fee to Mr. with brief and clerk. 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk 13 6 13 6 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Attending consultation % 13 4 13 4 
 
 8th. — Attending Court, appeal in the paper not called on 
 
 (each day) 068 10 
 
 \Qth. — Attending Court, appeal part heard . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 IWi. — Attending Court, appeal dismissed with costs II . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Copy minutes, four sides 020 020 
 
 Notice to settle 026 026 
 
 Attending to settle § 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Attending to pass 6 8 13 4 
 
 Attending to receive deposit 068 068 
 
 Copy order for Taxing Master, per folio . . . .004 004 
 
 Insert usual charges for drawing bill of costs, warrant on leaving and to tax 
 and certificate, and attending. 
 
 Term fee,|| &c 15 15 
 
 Country case 068 
 
 * As to costs of appeals and rehearings, see ante, pp. 9G-104. t ^rite, pp. 3.')7, 41 0. 
 
 t Ante, p. 354. § See General DircctionSj p. 4ii7. || Ante, pp. 357, 410. 
 
 G G 
 
4S0 plaintiffs' costs— appeal motion. 
 
 On an Appeal Motion * to dissolve an Injunction dismissed with Costs. 
 
 Between, &c. 
 
 The Bill of Costs of the above-named Plaintiff to he taxed under the order of the 
 Lord High Chancellor, dated 
 
 Easter Term, 186 . 
 
 ' & i. d. 
 
 Paid for copy further affidavits filed after Ms Honor tlie Vice-Chan- 
 cellor's judgment, fifteen folios 5 0. 
 
 Two copies for counsel (two sheets each) 13 4 
 
 Two copies of notice of appeal to annex to hriefs . . . .020 
 
 Drawing observations t (five sheets) higher scale . . . . 1 13 4 
 
 Two copies for counsel, higher scale 1 13 4 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk (as paid). 
 
 Paid him consultation fee 2 9 6 
 
 Attending him and appointing consultation 6 8 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 6 8 
 
 Paid him fee and clerk (as paid). 
 
 Paid him consultation fee . . . . . . . . .13 6 
 
 Attending him and appointing consultation 6 8 
 
 Attending consultation % IS 4 
 
 Attending court, appeal part heard § 13 4 
 
 Attending court, appeal dismissed with costs 13 4 
 
 Paid for order (as paid). 
 
 Attending passing || IS 4 
 
 Ooyy order for Taxing Master, per folio 4 
 
 Attending and obtaining master in rotation to be marked . . .068 
 
 Drawing costs and copy, eleven folios 7 4 
 
 Warrant on leaving, copy and service 5 6 
 
 Warrant to tax, copy and service H 5 6 
 
 Attending same 068 
 
 Paid for certificate of costs ** 10 
 
 Transcribing 020 
 
 Attending to file 6 8 
 
 Paid for office copy 020 
 
 Term fee,tt &c 15 
 
 Country agency case 118 
 
 Subpoena, conditional costs 126 
 
 * See as to costs of appeal motions, ante, p. 104. t See as to obseryations for counsel, ante, p. 3S4. 
 
 t jinte, p. 364. § See Gtoneral Directions. || 6». 8d. lower scale. IT 3s. 6iJ. lower scale. See too pp. 340-1. 
 •• IOj. lower scale. tt Ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
defendants' costs of suit. 451 
 
 DEFENDANTS' COSTS. 
 
 Of Appearance— Filing Atmver— Appearance on 3Iotim for In/unction, luith 
 Ajjoiirnment and further Affidavits—Admce on Emdence— -Examination of 
 Witnesses— PiihUcation enlarged— Admission of Documentary Evidetice — Sum- 
 mons to inspect Documents, and Hearing of Cause, with Refreshers to Counsel. 
 
 Between Plaintiffs 
 
 The BiU of Costs of the ahove-named Defendant to be taxed pursuant to ordi-r, 
 bearing date the day of 186 . 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Trinitii Term, 186 , !'*• i, issi. Feb. i, iss7. 
 
 ^ n -r J ! t & S. d. & s. d. 
 
 Oct. 2nd. — ^Instractioiis to defend 6 8 13 4 
 
 Attending entering appearance 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid stamp 070 070 
 
 Notice thereof, copy and service 2 6 2 6 
 
 Paid for printed copies of bill (as paid). 
 
 Perusing and considering bill 110 110 
 
 If above sixty folios, per folio 4 
 
 Paid for copy plaintiff's affidavits ffled in support of motion 
 
 for injunction, 115 folios (id. per folio) . . . 1 18 4 1 18 4 
 
 Perusing same 1 18 4 1 18 4 
 
 Close copy 1 18 4 1 18 4 
 
 Brief copy for counsel, twelve sbeets . . . .200 200 
 
 Copy notice of motion to annex 10 10 
 
 Notice of motion having been served to be beard at Vice- 
 Chancellor's chambers, attending Mr. with brief 
 
 to appear thereon 068 068 
 
 Paid his fee, and clerk 356 356 
 
 Oct. 2nd. — Attending at Vice-Chancellor's chambers, 
 motion ordered to stand over imtil first day of next 
 
 term or terms . . . . . . ■ .0134 13 4 
 
 Copy interrogatories, fffty-two folios . . . . 17 4 17 4 
 
 Perusing .068 17 4 
 
 Preparing summons for time to answer and attending to 
 
 get same sealed 068 068 
 
 Paid stamp 010 030 
 
 Copy for the Vice-chancellor 2 2 
 
 Copy and service 046 046 
 
 26th. — Attending summons for time, fourteen days granted 6 8 6 8 
 
 Attending for order, and to registrar's entering same .068 068 
 
 Paid stamp 010 050 
 
 ' ■ ^ - ' . 13 4 13 4 
 
 . 6 10 6 10 
 
 . 7 12 7 12 
 
 .068 13 4 
 
 . 15 15 
 8 
 
 Instructions for answer* . 
 
 Drawing same, 130 folios 
 
 Pee to Mr. to settle samet 
 
 Attending him 
 
 Term fee, J letters, &c. 
 
 Country .... 
 
 * See General Directions. t See iOth Cons. Ord. r. 32, ante, p. 353. t Antt, pp. 357, 410. 
 
 c 2 
 
452 defendants' costs op suit. 
 
 Jiowor Scale, 
 Michaelmas Term, 186 . 3?eb. i, 1867. 
 
 Inffrossing answer, if not printed 3 5 
 
 Paid for paroliinent, if not printed . . . . . 15 
 Attending defendant, reading over answer . . .16 
 Attending Mm to be sworn thereto . . . .06 
 
 Paid oath 1 
 
 Country .02 
 
 jSTotice of filing answer 2 
 
 Instructions for aflidavit of Mr. G. in opposition to motion 
 
 for injunction . . . . . . . ,06 
 
 Drawing same, twelve folios* 12 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Miss P. . . . .06 
 
 Drawing same, nine folios 9 
 
 Drawing affidavit of defendant's solicitor in opposition, 
 
 twenty-one folios . . . . . . .11 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of defendant . . . .06 
 
 Drawing same, six folios . . . . . .06 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. 6 
 
 Drawing same, nine folios 9 
 
 Attending Mr. with the above affidavits to settlet 6 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk. 
 
 Ingrossing the whole of the affidavits, in all fifty-seven 
 
 folios 19 
 
 Attending Miss P. to be sworn to her affidavit . .06 
 
 Paid oath 1 
 
 Paid filing 2 
 
 Attending defendant to be sworn to his affidavit . .06 
 
 Paid oath 1 
 
 Paid filing 2 
 
 Attending Mr. 0. to be sworn to his affidavit . . .06 
 
 Paid oath 1 
 
 Paid filing 2 
 
 If exhibits, charge marking each exhibit . . .01 
 
 Paid Commissioner marking same, each exhibit . .01 
 
 Paid oath to affidavit of Mr. G 1 
 
 The like of defendant's solicitor 1 
 
 Paid for office copies of the whole of the affidavits, in all 
 
 fifty-seven folios 19 
 
 Notice of filing same 2 
 
 Instructions for briefj 13 
 
 Another brief copy of plaintiff's affidavits in support of 
 
 motion, twelve sheets 2 
 
 Copy notice of motion to annex 1 
 
 Two brief copies of defendant's affidavits, six sheets each 2 
 Two copies of exhibits, four sheets each . . . .16 
 Drawing observations, two sheets ..... 
 
 Two fair copies for counsel 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 6 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 7 12 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk . . . .29 
 Attending him § 6 
 
 * See General Directious. 
 § Ante, p. 354. 
 
 t See ante, p. 355. 
 
 3ale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 «.W. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 (f. 
 
 £ J. d. 
 
 
 
 8 5 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 1 13 4 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 110 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 16 8 
 
 
 13 4 
 
 
 13 4 
 
 1 8 
 
 13 4 
 
 1 
 
 7 12 
 
 1 6 
 
 2 9 6 
 
 i 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 t See ante, p. 24. 
 
DEFENDANTS COSTS OF SUIT. 
 
 XiOwcr Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ A", d. 
 
 Paid him retainer "* 13 6 
 
 Drawing same and attending him 6 8 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 5 10 
 
 Paid him consiiltation fee and clerk . . . .13 6 
 
 Attending himt 6 8 
 
 Attending consultation 13 4 
 
 QiJi. — Attending Court, motion made and directed to stand 
 
 oyer until next seal . . . . . . .068 
 
 J£ further affidavits filed hy plaintiif in reply to those of 
 
 defendant, charge 
 
 Paid for copies of same (per folio) 4 
 
 Perusing same (per folio) . . . . . .004 
 
 Close copy 004 
 
 Two hrief copies for coimsel, sheets (ten folios to 
 
 the sheet) 
 
 If fm-ther affidavits filed by defendant, the charges for same 
 introduced here. 
 Two brief copies of further affidavits filed by defendant, 
 
 per sheet 034 
 
 Attending !Mr. with further brief . . .068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk. 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk . . . .296 
 
 Attending himt . • • •.• • • .068 
 
 Attending ^Ir. with further brief . . .068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk. 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk . . . ,18 6 
 
 Attending himf 6 8 
 
 Attending consultation 13 4 
 
 IQth. — Attending Court, motion heard . . . . 13 4 
 
 17rt.— The like this day 13 4 
 
 ISth. — ^Attending Court, injunction grantedj . . . 13 4 
 
 Close copy minutes (three sides) 16 
 
 Notice to settle 2 6 
 
 Attending settling 6 8 
 
 Or at Taxing Master's discretion not to exceed . .110 
 
 Attending passing order 6 8 
 
 Notice to pass ^i?^ 
 
 Term fee,§ letters, &c 15 
 
 Country 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions to advise on evidence || « ? ^ 
 
 Or per folio . • • .• 7, I o 
 
 Attending Mr. therewith „ ^ p 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk . •„•..-.■ ' i ^ 
 Feb.—PBX^ for copy affidavit of plamtifi^ m support o± 
 
 application to enlarge time for publication of evidence, 
 
 Attendino- summons, time enlarged for a month . .008 
 
 453 
 
 High< 
 
 ;r Scale. 
 
 i'eb. 
 
 1, 1S57. 
 
 * 
 
 s. 
 
 rf. 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 
 should be 
 
 3 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 9 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 1 3 
 6 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 13 
 1 
 2 
 13 
 3 3 
 13 
 
 6 
 8 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 4 
 6 
 6 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 2 6 
 15 
 6 8 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 4 6 
 
 4 
 8 
 
 * As to retiiining fees to counsel, see ante, p. 363. 
 
 t Ante p. S-W. X See General Directions. 
 
 5 Ante, pp. 3-37, 410. 
 
 1 SxaiWh Cons. Order, r. 82, ante, p. 853. 
 
454 defendants' costs of suit. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Eeb. 1, 1857. 
 £ s. d. £ s. (2. 
 
 Writing plaintiff's solicitor in answer to his^ to send me 
 
 list of documents req[uired to be admitted . . .068 068 
 
 15th. — Attending summons to inspect* documents, men- 
 tioned in schedule to defendant's answer, order made .068 068 
 
 Preparing summons to Luspect documents in plaintiff's 
 
 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid for stamp 010 030 
 
 Copy to leave at chambers 020 020 
 
 Copy and service 046 046 
 
 Attending summons, plaintiff to file affidavit . . .068 068 
 Paid for copy affidavit, forty folios . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Perusing . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Attending plaintiff's solicitor upon the subject of admis- 
 sions required by him when he gave me list of documents 
 he required to be admitted, and I was to consider the 
 matter, and arranging for mutual inspection of papers in 
 
 each other's custody 068 068 
 
 Drawing list of witnesses proposed to be examined on part 
 
 of defendant . ._ 040 040 
 
 Copy and service on plaintiff's solicitor . . . .026 026 
 Attending for appointment to examine defendant's wit- 
 nesses 068 068 
 
 Prtecipe for two subpoenas ad test, for the attendance of 
 
 witnesses 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid stamps 10 10 
 
 Copy and service on Mr. with notice of appointment 10 10 
 
 Paid him (as paid). 
 
 The like on Miss 10 10 
 
 Paid her (as paid). 
 
 The like on Mr. at Netting Hill, three miles . 10 10 
 
 Paid him 
 
 The like on three other witnesses, each . . . . 10 10 
 
 Paid them attending 
 
 Attending examining several witnesses, charge by time . 
 
 Drawing proofs (per sheet) 068 068 
 
 Fair copy for counsel (per sheet) 3 4 3 4 
 
 Drawing brief for counsel (per sheet) . . . .068 068 
 
 Fair copy . 034 034 
 
 Attending counsel with brief and all papers . . .068 13 4 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 5 10 5 10 
 
 Attending him to appoint conference . . . .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 160 160 
 
 Attending conferencef 13 4 13 4 
 
 20th.' — Attending examiner (per hour) J . . . .068 13 4 
 Attending counsel with further brief to attend examination 
 
 of plaintiff's witnesses 068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk (as paid). 
 
 21st. — Attending examination this day (per hour) J . .068 13 4 
 Attending examination of documents in plaintiff's posses- 
 sion, each hour engaged 068 068 
 
 * As to costs of iBspecting documents, ante, p. 357. f Ante, p. 354. 
 
 t £2 2s. per diem according to higher scale, and £1 Is. per diem according to the lower scale. But 
 where counsel do not attend the examination, then the fee for solicitor's attendance may, at the master's 
 discretion, be increased to £.2 2s. on the lower, and £3 Ss. on the higher scale. 
 
DEFENDANTS COSTS OP SUIT. 
 
 Lower .Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 £ s. (/. 
 
 Attending instructing- coiuisel to attend every otlier 
 
 meeting for examination of -svitnesses . . . .068 
 Paid his fee on each occasion (as paid). 
 Attending fm-thei examinations after the same scale 
 Copy proposed admission of documents in plaintiff's 
 
 possession, per folio 4 
 
 Perusing and examining same with documents to be 
 
 admitted 068 
 
 Examiniag original and duplicate admission to be signed 6 8 
 Attending sigmng admissions and documents . . .068 
 Paid fees at examiner's for examination of "witnesses (as 
 
 paid).* 
 Paid for copy depositions of plaintiff's ■witnesses, ninety- 
 
 foui- folios (-id. per folio)t 1 11 4 
 
 T-wo brief copies for counsel, ten sheets each . . .368 
 Paid for oifice copy examination of defendant's witnesses, 
 
 seventy-four folios (4f/. per folio) t . • • .14 8 
 Two copies for counsel, eight sheets each . . . 2 13 4 
 
 Two copies of admissions, sheets (each sheet of ten 
 
 foHos) 034 
 
 Term fee,}; letters, &c 15 
 
 Qoimtry 
 
 455 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 11 
 
 
 4 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 15 
 6 
 
 Salter Term, 186 . 
 
 Drawing observations§ for counsel, three sheets 
 
 Two fair copies thereof . 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c 15 
 
 Country 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 6 8 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 7a?2/ 21sif.— Attending Mr. with brief . ■ ^ 6 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk ° 1^ 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk ^ » 
 
 Attending him § ^2 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief . . . • , ^ 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk ^ ° 
 
 Paid him consultation fee n c 
 
 Attending him § ^^ 
 
 Attending consultation J^ |^ 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c " ^° 
 
 Country 
 
 Refresher to 5Ir. 
 Attending him 
 
 Michaelmas Term, 186 
 and clerk , 
 
 Kefresher to ^Ir. and clerk . . . ■ i 
 Attending him 
 
 « Ante, p. «2. t If not printed, ante, p. 416. t Ante, pp. 857, 410. 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 5 Anlc, p. 354. 
 
456 dependants' costs of suit. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higter Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 & s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 Nov. 5th. — Attending court, cause part heard * . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 8th.— The like, decree made * . , . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Copy minutes, three sides 016 016 
 
 Attending settling 068 13 4 
 
 Or at Taxing Master's discretion not to exceed . .110 3 3 
 
 Attending passing order . . . . . . .068 13 4 
 
 Tei-m fee,t letters, &c 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Drawing costs, &c., and taxation of same, see former scale. 
 
 Defendants' Costs of Appearance — Filing Answer — Ditto, to Amended Bill — Advise 
 
 on Evidence Summons for Production of Documents — Evidence hy Affidavits, 
 
 with Cross-examination by Special Examiner — Enlarging of Time for taking 
 Evidence and Hearing of Catise — Inquiries under Decree — Certificate and fur- 
 ther Directions, 
 
 3Eu ffiljanterij. 
 
 Between, &c. 
 
 77ie Bill of Costs of the above-named Defendants, to be taxed under the order 
 bearing date the day of 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Instructions to defend 8 13 4 
 
 Prseoipe and entering appearance 6 8 6 8 
 
 If exceeding three defendants, for every additional number 
 
 not exceeding three 068 068 
 
 Attending giving undertaking to appear . . . .068 068 
 Paid stamp on entering appearance . . . . .070 070 
 If exceeding three, for every additional numher not exceed- 
 ing three 070 070 
 
 Notice thereof, copy and service 2 6 2 6 
 
 Paid for four printed copy bills,J forty-five folios . .076 076 
 
 Perusing and considering bill 110 110 
 
 If exceeding sixty folios, per folio 4 
 
 Copy interrogatories, seventeen folios . . . .058 058 
 
 Perusing 068 13 4 
 
 Or per folio, if exceeding 40 folios 4 
 
 April 5th. — Preparing summons for time to answer, and 
 
 attending to get same sealed 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid for stamp 010 030 
 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor 020 020 
 
 Copy and service of same 046 046 
 
 5th. — Attending summons, one fortnight gi'anted . .068 068 
 
 Attending for order, and at Eegistrar's enteiing same .068 068 
 
 * See General Directions. t ^tie, pp. 357, 410. 
 
 t Under the 19th rule of the 4:0t?t Consolidated Order, the charge for each printed copy of the bill is to 
 be at the rate of one halfpenny per folio. 
 
defendants' costs op suit. 457 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 Paid lor stamp 010 050 
 
 Term fee,* &c 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Easter Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions for answer t 1.3 4 13 4 
 
 Drawing same, ninety-six folios 4 16 4 16 
 
 Copy will and other papers, to enaMe counsel to settle 
 
 same sheets (3s. 4d each sheet of ten folios) J 
 
 Paid Mr. fee on settling- answer . . . 5 10 5 10 
 
 Attending him 068 13 4 
 
 Ingrossing answer (if not printed) . . . . .280 280 
 
 Paid for parchment (if not printed) 10 10 
 
 Attending defendants, readmg over same . . . .10 17 8 
 
 Attending to be sworn, if separately, each . . .068 068 
 
 Paid oath, country . . ." 026 026 
 
 Notice of filing answer, copy and service . . . .026 026 
 
 Perusing amended print of hill, in writing . . .068 068 
 
 K exceeding twenty folios, per folio .... 004 
 Amending print of hiU, the plaintiff having served amended 
 
 copy . . .. . .. . . .068 13 4 
 
 Perusing interrogatories to amended bill . . . .068 13 4 
 
 Close copy, fo. 14 . . . . . . . .048 048 
 
 Instructions for answer to amended hill t • • . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Drawing same, thirty-four folios 1 14 1 14 
 
 Fee to Mr. to settle 2 4 6 2 4 6 
 
 Attending him . • 068 068 
 
 Ingrossing answer, (if not printed) 0170 0170 
 
 Parchment 050 050 
 
 Attending defendant's reading over same . . . 13 4 110 
 
 Attending defendant to be sworn 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paidoath 026026 
 
 Notice of copy, filing and service 2 6 2 6 
 
 Termfee,"&c. ! 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Michaelmas Term, 186 . 
 Preparing summons for production of documents by plain- 
 tiff, and attending sealing n?n HQn 
 
 Paidforstamp 2 020 
 
 Copyf or the Judge n,« n a r. 
 
 Copy and sei-vice thereof . . • • • ' ^ ,\ I 0*6 
 
 Attending summons, order made for production . . 13 4 " 1^ 4 
 
 Paid for order n fi 8 l" ^ 
 
 Attending passing 026 0^6 
 
 Notice to pass . ■ no4 nfi/t 
 
 Copy order for service, per folio 2 6 2 6 
 
 Service thereof . • ■."„■,■ ' i. -J ^ ' 
 
 Attending summons for production of documents by de- ^ ^^ ^ 13 4 
 
 fendanta 
 
 ♦ Se ante pp. 357, ^l". t ^°^ General Directions. X If printed, see General Directions. 
 
458 defendants' costs of suit. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higlier Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1861. Feb. 1, 18(il. 
 
 & f. d. * s. d. 
 
 Attending passing order 068 13 4 
 
 Paid for copy of plaintiff's affidavit as to documents, three 
 
 folios . 10 10 
 
 Perusing 010 010 
 
 Close copy ...010 010 
 
 Plaintiff having given notice of taking evidence by affidavit, 
 
 paid for copies of plaintiff's affidavits, in all iifty-one 
 
 folios (if not printed)* 17 17 
 
 Close copy 17 17 
 
 Perusing affidavits (per folio 4=d.) 17 17 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. E. F 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, tvrenty-six folios . . . . .16 16 
 
 If settled by counsel 
 
 Attending Mr. therewith to settle . .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk t 136 136 
 
 Ingrossing affidavit . . ■ . . . . .088 088 
 
 Attending him to be sworn 068 068 
 
 If any exhibits, marking each exhibit . . . .010 010 
 
 Paid Commissioner's fee, each exhibit . . . .010 010 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office coot 088 088 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of G. 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, twenty folios 100 100 
 
 Fee to Mr. to settle (if necessary t) . .13 6 13 6 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Ingrossiag affidavit 068 068 
 
 Attending binn to be sworn 068 068 
 
 Paid fee 016016 
 
 (If exhibits, as above.) 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 068 068 
 
 Notice of filing, copy and service 2 6 2 6 
 
 Instructions for Mr. to advise on sufficiency 
 
 of evidence, and attending him 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk % ■ . ._■ ._. .136 136 
 Preparing summons to appoint a Special Commissioner to 
 
 cross-examine plaintift''s witnesses, and attending to get 
 
 same sealed 068 068 
 
 Paid stamp 010 030 
 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor 020 020 
 
 Copy and service 046 046 
 
 Attending summons, same adjourned ; plaintiff desiring to 
 
 enlarge time for taking evidence 6 8 6 8 
 
 Attending summons to enlarge time for taking evidence, 
 
 order made 068 068 
 
 Term fee,§ &c 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Hilary Term,}SQ . 
 lier affidavits, twenti 
 
 * If pi-inted, see General Directions. t Avtp, p. 35.'). 
 
 } Ante, p. 353. § Ante. pp. 357,410. 
 
 Paid for copy plaintiff's further affidavits, twenty-eight 
 folios (if not printed) 094 094 
 
defendants' costs or suit. 
 
 459 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1861. 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Close copy 094 
 
 Perusing same (-id. per folio) 9 4 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of P. S 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, thirteen folios 13 
 
 Ingrossing 044 
 
 Attending him to be sworn 6 8 
 
 Paid fee 16 
 
 Paid filing. 2s. Qd., and for office copy, 4s. i.d. . . . 6 10 
 Attending adjonrned summons to appoint examiner, same 
 further adjourned for plaintiif to satisfy himself of ex- 
 aminer's ttness 6 8 
 
 Attending adjourned summons, examiner appointed . .068 
 Attending for ordering and entering . . . .068 
 
 Paid for same 010 
 
 Copy and service . . . . . . . ,036 
 
 K'otice to plaintiffs to produce documents according to 
 
 order, copy and service 3 6 
 
 Brief copy affidavits to prepare for cross-examination, in 
 
 all 138 folios, fourteen sheets . . . . .268 
 Attending defendant's agent, and arranging time and place 
 
 of examination 6 8 
 
 Journey to attending same out three days * . 6 6 
 
 Paid travelling expenses (as paid). 
 
 Paid special examiner's charges (as paid).t 
 
 Paid for office copy depositions, forty-five folios . . 15 
 
 Term fee,t &c 15 
 
 Country . 
 
 ligher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1,1861. 
 
 * 
 
 s. d. 
 
 
 
 9 4 
 
 
 
 9 4 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 
 
 4 4 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 1 6 
 
 
 
 6 10 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 6 
 
 2 6 8 
 
 6 
 6 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 15 
 15 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 Easter Term, 186 
 
 Instructions for hrief § 11 
 
 Two brief copies of affidavits, fourteen sheets each . . 4 13 
 The like of exhibits, six sheets each . . . .20 
 
 The like of depositions, five sheets each . . . . 1 13 
 Amending print of biU for senior counsel . . . .06 
 Drawing observations, two sheets each .... 
 
 Two copies for counsel || _ ; 
 
 Two copies of wiU to accompany same, per folio, (if not 
 
 before charged) 
 
 Fee to Mr. with brief, and clerk. 
 
 Attending him 6 
 
 Paid him consultation fee, and clerk . . . .29 
 
 Attending him 6 
 
 Fee to Mr. with brief, and clerk. 
 
 Attending him 6 
 
 Paid him consultation fee, and clerk . . . .13 
 
 Attending him 6 
 
 Attending consultation lo 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1 13 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 2 9 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 to costs of a London solicitor attending examinations of witnesses in tlie country, see anie, p. 357. 
 
 to a special examiner's fees, see ante, p. 40d, and Payne v. LUtle, 21 Bear 6.\ 
 
 ,. „ 457 § See are(e,p. 2-1. 11 Ante, p. hM. 
 
 * As 
 t As 
 t Ante, p. 357. 
 
460 defendants' costs of suit. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1S57. 
 
 £ s. d. & s. d. 
 
 28ih. — Attending Court, cause in the paper . . .068 10 
 
 20i!/j.— Attending Court, decree made * . . . . 13 4 110 
 
 Close copy minutes . . . . . . .016 016 
 
 Attending settling same 13 4 13 4 
 
 Or at Taxing Master's discretion not to exceed . .110 3 3 
 
 Attending passing decree 068 13 4 
 
 Term fee,t letters, and messengers 15 15 
 
 Countiy 068 
 
 If inquiries directed 
 
 Attending summons to consider decree, accounts directed 
 
 to "be brought in "by a certain day, and advertisement to 
 
 be issued, &c 13 4 13 4 
 
 Instructions for affidavit as to accounts * . . . .068 068 
 
 Drawing same with accounts, per folio . . . .010 010 
 
 Ingrossing same, per foUo 004 004 
 
 Attending reading over and to be sworn thereto . .068 068 
 
 Paid oath ■ . . .026 026 
 
 MarHng exhibit 010 010 
 
 Paid for office copy affidavit, eight folios . . . .028 028 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Attending adjourned summons, and partly proceeded upon 
 
 the accounts 13 4 13 4 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c 15 15 
 
 Country case 068 
 
 Attending each adjomned summons (as certified by chief 
 
 clerk) 
 
 Paid for copies of affidavits filed in support of inquiries by 
 
 the opposing party, per folio 4 4 
 
 If special, perusing same, per folio 4 4 
 
 If answered, charge for instructions, drawing, ingrossing, attending to be 
 sworn, and paid oath, and filing same, and attendances. 
 
 K statements necessary, and directed to be brought in, 
 
 drawing and fair copy, per foUo 8 14 
 
 Paid for copy draft certificate, per folio . . . .004 004 
 
 Close copy 004 004 
 
 Drawing brief on further directions, decree, certificate, and 
 
 any interlocutory order, seven brief sheets (65. 8d, each 
 
 sheet) 268268 
 
 Two fair copies for counsel (3s. id. each sheet) . .268 268 
 
 Drawing observations, two sheets 13 4 
 
 Copy 068 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief . . . .068 068 
 Paid his fee and clerk. 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief . . . .068 068 
 Paid his fee and clerk. 
 
 K consultation, add same. 
 
 Attending Court, order made 13 4 110 
 
 Or according to circumstances 2 2 
 
 Copy minutes, per side 006 006 
 
 ' See General Directions. t ^nle, pp. 357, 410. 
 
defendants' costs — COMPEOMISE OE SUIT. 461 
 
 Lower Scalo. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1S07. Feb. 1, 18S7. 
 
 Attending settling * '(3 "s 13 4 
 
 Attending passing order 068 13 4 
 
 Attending Accountant-General for directions to pay in 
 
 under order, and 
 
 Attending at the Bank, paying in /!. 13 4 13 4 
 
 pursuant tliereto, and to Accountant-General's to file 
 
 receipt * 
 
 Paid for office copy certificate 014 014 
 
 If costs taxed, see charges, dra-wing, and attending ta^sing same, and for certificate. 
 
 Term fee,t &o 15 15 
 
 Country case 068 
 
 Cod of Defendants Answer to Bill, and appearing on Petition to compromise 
 
 the Suit. 
 
 (^Solicitor and Client.') 
 Easter Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions to defend 6 8 13 4 
 
 April 2oth. — Instructions to appear, and attending enter 
 
 ing same 
 Stamp .... 
 If exceeding three defendants, for every additional 
 her not exceeding six 
 Stamp not exceeding six . 
 Kotice thereof, copy and service 
 
 6 8 6 8 
 
 7 7 
 
 6 8 6 8 
 
 14 14 
 
 2 6 2 6 
 
 5 4 5 4 
 
 110 110 
 
 4 
 
 4 4 
 
 6 8 13 4 
 
 Perusing and considering bill 
 If ahove sixty folios, per foUo 
 Copy interrogatories, twelve folios 
 Perusing interrogatories . 
 
 If exceeding forty folios, per foUo 4 
 
 Copy ■wiU three brief sheets, copy correspondence, promis- 
 sory note, and accounts relating to the property in ques- 
 tion, as instructions for counsel, in all six sheets § .10 10 
 
 Paid carriage of papers to tovra 2 2 
 
 Instructions for answer || 13 4 13 4 
 
 Drawing same, thirtj'-two folios 1 12 1 12 
 
 Attending Mr. with papers to settle . .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 246 240 
 
 Parcel from London with papers 4 4 
 
 Ingrossing answer (if not printed) ^ 16 16 
 
 Paid for parchment . . . . . . .050 060 
 
 Preparing summons for time, and attending to get same 
 
 sealed 068 068 
 
 Paid for stamp 010 030 
 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor 020 020 
 
 Copy and service of same 046 046 
 
 « See General Directions. t Ante, pp. 357, 410. t See arte, p. 4.56, note. 
 
 § See aTtte p. 354. H ^^^ General Directions. U If printed, see General Dii'ections. 
 
462 
 
 DEFENDANTS COSTS — COMPROMISE OF SUIT. 
 
 Attending summons, ten days granted 
 
 Attending for order for time, and to Registrar's entering 
 
 same 
 
 Paid for stamp 
 
 Attending defendant's reading over answer, and afterwards 
 
 ■ to be sworn thereto * 
 
 Paid fee (as paid). 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c. j . . . . ■ . 
 
 Country 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Notice of filing answer 
 
 Attending plaintiff's solicitor on the terms proposed before 
 the srdt commenced, and which he was now willing to 
 accept. I promised to see my clients thereon 
 
 Attending defendants, conferring with and advising them, 
 when they were willing to compromise the s'lit on the 
 same terms, provided the plaintiffs paid their own 
 expenses 
 
 Attending on plaintiffs' solicitor, informing him thereof, 
 and arranging for presentation of petition to settle the 
 suit on sucl* terms ....... 
 
 Copy affidavit ia support, fol. 6 
 
 Perusing ......... 
 
 Close copy 
 
 Brief petition and affidavits, together, thirty folios . 
 
 Drawing observations % and fair copy, one sheet 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief .... 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk § 
 
 Attending Court, order made 
 
 Copy minutes ......... 
 
 Attending settling same 
 
 Attending passing order 
 
 Attending plaintiff 's solicitor, arranging with him to obtain 
 receipt of plaintiffs for balance, and afterwards paying 
 him same ...... 
 
 Drawing costs and copy, twelve folios 
 
 Warrant on leaving, copy and service 
 
 Warrant to tax, copy and service|| . 
 
 Attending taxing . • . 
 
 Paid for certificate .... 
 
 Transcribing 
 
 Attending to file, and for office copy 
 
 Paid for office copy 
 
 Term fee,t letters, and messengers . 
 
 Country 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 185T. 
 £ s. d. 
 
 6 8 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £ i. d. 
 
 6 g 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 1 1 
 
 1 13 4 
 
 16 
 
 15 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 6 8 
 
 6 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 10 
 
 6 
 2 4 
 13 
 1 
 13 
 6 
 
 6 
 8 
 3 
 3 
 6 
 10 
 2 
 6 
 2 
 15 
 
 6 8 
 2 
 2 
 2 
 10 
 10 
 6 8 
 2 4 6 
 110 
 10 
 13 4 
 13 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 8 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 * See General Directiors. 
 § See ante, pp. 34:0-1. 
 
 t Ante,]?]?. 357,410. 
 II Ante, p. 341. 
 
 t Ante^ p. 354. 
 
defendants' costs on dismissal. 
 
 463 
 
 COSTS OF PLEA OR DEMURRER.* 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 Instruction for plea or demurrer 
 
 Drawing same, per folio . 
 
 Fee to counsel to settle . 
 
 Attending him 
 
 Ingrossing plea, per folio . 
 
 Attending reading over same as an answer 
 
 Attending to be sworn 
 
 Paid oati .... 
 
 Notice ..... 
 
 Drawing petition to set down 
 
 No observations allowed.! 
 
 jower Scale. 
 ?eb. 1, 1857. 
 & s. d. 
 
 13 4 
 10 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 13 4 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 
 8 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 4 
 
 6 
 2 
 2 
 
 8 
 6 
 6 
 
 6 8 
 2 6 
 2 
 
 COSTS OF MOTION TO DISMISS. J 
 £ii Chanters. 
 
 Between, &c. 
 
 The Bin of Costs of the Defendant to he taxed pursuant to an Order made in 
 this cause hearing date the 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Drawing notice of motion to dismiss bill for want of prose- 
 cution, copy and service 020 050 
 
 Or, per folio 010 
 
 Drawing and ingrossing affidavit of service, six; folios .060 060 
 
 Paid oath and filing 040 040 
 
 Paid for office copy 020 020 
 
 Paid for office copy of affidavit of plaintiff in opposition to 
 
 motion, eight folios 028 028 
 
 Perusing 028 028 
 
 Close copy _. . • .028 028 
 
 Drawing brief to counsel to move, and fair copy, one sheet 10 10 
 
 Copy notice of motion to annex 10 10 
 
 Bnef plaintiff's affidavit to accompany . . . .034 034 
 
 Fee to counsel to move, and clerk 18 6 13 6 
 
 Attending him .068 068 
 
 Attending court, motion made and ordered unless replica- 
 tion filed in a month, and for payment of costs . .0134 13 4 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Attending passing 068 13 4 
 
 Notice to pass 026 026 
 
 Copy order for Taxing Master, per folio . . . .004 004 
 
 Drawing bill of costs and copy, six folios . . .040 040 
 
 * See ante, pp. 18-23. 
 
 X An to co,5td of motion to clismiss, ante, pp. 36, 37. 
 
 t See p. 35i. 
 
Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1, 1857. 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 li. 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 464 defendants' costs. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 & s. d. 
 
 "Warrant on leaving, copy and service . . . .036 
 
 The like to tax 3 6 
 
 Attending taxing 6 8 
 
 Paid for certificate of costs 10 
 
 Transcribing 020 
 
 Paid for office copy 2 
 
 Attending filing 6 8 
 
 Term fee,* &c 16 
 
 Country 
 
 On Exceptions to answer.^ 
 
 Defendant. 
 
 Paid for office copy exceptions to answer, seven folios .024 024 
 
 Two fair copies for counsel 068 068 
 
 Paid Mr. witli brief on exceptions . .356 356 
 
 Attending Idm 068 068 
 
 Paid bim consultation fee, and clerk . . . .296 296 
 
 Attending bim 068 068 
 
 Paid Mr. with brief and clerk . . .246 246 
 
 Attending bim 068 068 
 
 Paid bim consultation fee, and clerk . . . .13 6 13 6 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Attending consultation 13 4 13 4 
 
 Attending Court, exceptions allowed . . . .068 13 4 
 Charge term fee if no other proceeding carrying it . • 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Insert proper charges for further answer, according to the same scale and for 
 instructions for drawing and ingrossing the original answer, and fees paid 
 to counsel and attendances, &c., but see directions as to printed answer. 
 
 Defendants Costs of Motion to stay Proceedings at Law dismissed ivith Costs. 
 
 Term, 186 . 
 
 Two brief copies of pleadings in the cause, eighteen 
 
 sheets each. (Printed) 
 
 Two copies of notices of motion to annex , . .020 020 
 
 Paid Mr. with brief, and clerk . . . 6 11 6 11 
 
 Attending him 068 13 4 
 
 Paid him consultation fee, and clerk . . . .296 296 
 
 Attending bim 068 068 
 
 Paid Mr. with brief, and clerk . . .466 466 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Paid him consultation fee and clerk . . . .13 6 13 6 
 
 Attending bim J 068 068 
 
 Attending consultation 13 4 IS 4 
 
 Paid for gffice copy affidavits in support of motion, nine 
 
 folios 030 030 
 
 Perusing 030 080 
 
 * Ante, pp. 357, 410. t As to costs of exceptions, see pp. 27-29. } See ante, p. 354. 
 
plaintiffs' costs of administeation summons. 465 
 
 Lo\Yer Scale. 
 Peb. 1, 1887. 
 
 Close copy _ 080 
 
 Two brief copies thereof for counsel . . . .068 
 
 Instructions for affidavit on motion . . . . .068 
 
 Drawing same, twenty folios 10 
 
 Attendino; :Ma-. to settle . . . .068 
 
 Paid his fee, and clerk 2 4 6 
 
 Ingrossing !o68 
 
 Attending to be sworn 6 8 
 
 Paid oath . . . . . . . . .016 
 
 If any exhibits, marking each exhibit . . . .010 
 
 Paid Com mi ssioner's fee, marking same, each exhibit .010 
 
 Paid filing 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 6 8 
 
 Notice of filing copy and service 2 6 
 
 Two brief copies thereof, two sheets each . . . 13 4 
 
 Attending Court, motion dismissed with costs . .068 
 
 Paid for order 10 
 
 Attending passing . . . . ■ . . .068 
 Attending for reference to proper Taxing Master . .068 
 Copy order for Taxing Master, per folio . . . .004 
 Drawing costs, &c., and taxation of same.' 
 
 Higlicr Scale. 
 
 Peb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 if. 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 PLAINTIFF'S COSTS. 
 Under Administration Suitf commenced by Summons. 
 
 In the matter of A. B., of 
 C. D., an infant hy 
 
 his next Friend. 
 
 deceased. 
 Plaintiff. 
 
 E. F. Defendant. 
 
 The Bill. of Costs of the above-named Plaintiff, to be taxed (as betroeen Solicitor and 
 
 Client) under Order bearing date the 
 
 day of 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Feb. \d. — ^Instructions for summons at chambers for ad- 
 ministration of estate ....... 
 
 Preparing original summons and duplicate thereof . 
 
 Paid for stamps 
 
 Duplicate 
 
 Attending at chambers to get same sealed 
 
 Certifying proceedings under lower scale 
 
 Drawing and fair copy, authority to sue as next friend, 
 and attending when he signed same . . _ . 
 
 Ml. — Attending the solicitor to the administratrix, when 
 he lent me letters of administration, and taking extracts 
 therefrom 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 8 18 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 « As to costs of taxation, see pp. 858-361. 
 
 t See as to costs of suits for administration of assets generally ank, pp. 109-137. 
 
 H H 
 
466 plaintiffs' costs of administration summons. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 7th. — Attendingat the Writ and Record Clerks' office, filing 
 
 duplicate, and obtaining stamps to original and copy .068 068 
 
 Copy for service 020 020 
 
 Service 026 026 
 
 Paid for stamp 010 050 
 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor 020 020 
 
 Attending defendants' solicitor, and obtaining undertaking 
 
 to appear, and leaving copy summons . . . .068 068 
 
 8th. — Instructions for affidavit of llr. in support 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, six folios 060 060 
 
 Ingrossing 020 020 
 
 Attending Mm, reading over same, and to be sworn . .068 068 
 
 Paid oath and filing 040 040 
 
 Paid for office copy 020 020 
 
 Notice of filing, copy and service . . . . 2 6 2 6 
 22nd. — Attending summons, affidavit read, and letters of 
 
 administration produced, usual administration order 
 
 made 13 4 13 4 
 
 24tt. — Attending settling minutes of order . . .068 13 4 
 
 Paid for stamp for order 10 100 
 
 Attending passing same 068 13 4 
 
 March 1st. — Writing Mr. for date of marriages, 
 
 and christening of the infant 3 6 3 6 
 
 Urd. — Attendinghim, when he furnished me therewith, 
 
 and taking same down . , 068 068 
 
 Copy order for the Vice-Ohancellor, per folio . . .004 004 
 Preparing summons to consider order, and attending to get 
 
 same sealed 068 068 
 
 Stamp for same 010 030 
 
 Copy for the Judge 020 020 
 
 Copy and service of same 046 046 
 
 8th. — Attending summons, affidavit of receipts and pay- 
 ments to be left in a fortnight, advertisements ordered 
 
 and day fixed for proceeding on accounts and on claims 13 4 13 4 
 Preparing advertisement ....... 
 
 Attending to get same approved and signed . . .068 13 4 
 
 Paid for stamp . . 10 
 
 Attending Gazette office with same . . . .068 068 
 Paid insertion, and for Gazette (as paid). 
 
 Copy for the Times 010 010 
 
 Paid for two insertions and papers (as paid). 
 
 Copy for Daily News 010 010 
 
 Paid for insertions and papers (as paid). 
 
 Copy for the Glohe 010 010 
 
 Paid for insertions and papers (as paid). 
 
 Attendances, inserting same . . . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 23M-^Paid for copy affidavit of administratrix, seventy- 
 two folios .140 140 
 
 Close copy 140 140 
 
 Perusing same .140 140 
 
 Paid for copy pedigree, per folio 4 4 
 
 April 5th. — Attending adjourned summons, strict proof of 
 pedigree ordered, and affidavits of receipts and payments 
 
 pai-tly gone into 13 4 13 4 
 
PLAIXTIFFS' COSTS OF ADMINISTRATION SUMMONS. 46'; 
 
 Attending to searcli if any claims entered, and afterwwds 
 on day appointed for hearing same, three filed 
 
 Where the niimher exceeds five, for every additional num- 
 ber not exceeding five an additional sum of . 
 
 Paid for ofiice copy affidavit of in support of claim, 
 ten folios 
 
 The like of eight folios 
 
 The like of fifteen folios 
 
 Writing full pai'ticulars as to what -was now 
 required, and who would make the necessary afiidavit 
 identifying- the parties 
 
 Attending at St. Giles, Camherwell, seai'ching for and ex- 
 amining certificate of fii'st marriage .... 
 
 Paid for same ......... 
 
 Attending at Trinity Church, Brompton, ohtaining certi- 
 ficate of baptism of infant, and expenses 
 
 Paid for same 
 
 Writing the Rev. Mr. full particulars of first 
 
 wife's death and second marriage, and for him to send me 
 certificates ......... 
 
 Writing him acknowledging receipt thereof 
 
 Paid him for same (as paid). 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. as to identity of parties 
 
 Drawing same, nine folios 
 
 Ingrossing ...... 
 
 Attending him reading over, and to be sworn 
 
 Marking four exhibits, each 
 
 Paid oath and mai'king exhibits 
 
 Paid filing 
 
 Is'otice of filing 
 
 Paid for office copy . 
 
 Term fee,* letters, &c. 
 
 Country . 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, lS.-,7. 
 
 £, s. d. 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 110 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 110 
 
 3 
 -2 
 5 
 
 4 
 8 
 
 
 3 4 
 2 8 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Easter Term, 186 . 
 
 April l&th. — Attending adjourned summons, inquiry satis- 
 fied as to next of kin, subject to verification of certificates 
 
 not certified by the vicar * 13 4 13 4 
 
 Drawing same accordingly, four folios . . . .040 040 
 
 Ingrossing . • 014 014 
 
 Attending to be sworn 068 068 
 
 Marking two exhibits 020 020 
 
 Paid oath and marking exhibits 3 6 3 
 
 Paid filing 020 02 6 
 
 Paid for oflEice copy 014 014 
 
 26<A. — Attending adjourned summons, pedigree proved, 
 
 accounts investigated 13 4 13 4 
 
 Or according to chief clerk's certificate. See General Directions as to further 
 allowances to be made, where, from the length of the attendance, difEcuHy 
 
 • Ante, pp. 357, 410. 
 E H 2 
 
468 plaintiffs' costs of administeation summons. 
 
 of the case, &c., the Judge shall think that further remuneration ought to 
 
 be paid for the services performed. See ante, p. 427. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 May 5th. — Attending adjourned summons, fm-ther ad- * «• <*• * '■ * 
 
 ioumed to enable outstanding estate to be realised and 
 
 Drought into the present account 6 8 6 8 
 
 Term fee,* &c 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Trinitt/ Tei-m, 186 . 
 
 Paid for copy further affidavit of receipts and payments, 
 
 seven folios 024 024 
 
 Close copy 024 024 
 
 Perusing 024 024 
 
 31s*. — Attending adjourned summons, certificate partly 
 
 gone through, further receipts and payments proceeded 
 
 upon, affidavit required that outstanding debts were bad 13 4 13 4 
 
 Instructions for affidavit as to bad debts . . . .068 068 
 
 Drawing and ingrossing same, five folios . . . .068 068 
 
 Attending deponent to be sworn 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid oath and filing 040 040 
 
 Paid for office copy 018 018 
 
 Notice 026 026 
 
 Copy certificate, eleven folios 088 088 
 
 Close copy 088 088 
 
 June X4th. — Attending settling same . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Ingrossing 088 088 
 
 Paid for stamp 100 100 
 
 Attending on signing certificate 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid for office copy 038 038 
 
 Attending bespeaking, and for same . . . .068 068 
 Preparing summons for further consideration of order, and 
 
 attending to get same sealed 6 8 6 8 
 
 Stamp for same 010 030 
 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor 020 020 
 
 Copy and service on defendant's solicitors . . .046 046 
 
 Attending same, adjourned to be heard in Court . .068 068 
 
 Drawing minutes of order, ten folios . . . . 10 10 
 
 Drawinginstructionsfor counsel to settle,andattendinghim 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee, and clerk 186 186 
 
 Copy minutes for defendant's solicitors . . . .034 084 
 
 "Writing them with same 036 086 
 
 Copy certificate and orders for the Court, per folio . .004 004 
 
 Attending leaving papers 068 068 
 
 Drawing brief on further consideration (3 B. S. and copy) 1 10 1 10 
 
 Drawing observations and copy, two sheets ... 100 
 
 Drawing request, and attending setting down cause .068 068 
 
 Notice thereof '. . .026 026 
 
 Attending Mr. vsdth brief . . . .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee, and clerk 246 246 
 
 July Qth. — Attending Court, order made upon minutes as 
 
 drawn 13 4 18 4 
 
 '•^n*,pp.357,410. 
 
plaintiffs' costs of administration summons. 469 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d, £ s. d. 
 
 Attending settling minutes 068 13 4 
 
 Or at taxing- master's discretion not to exceed . .110 3 3 
 Copy minutes 6d. per side. 
 
 Attending passing, and entering order . . . .068 13 4 
 
 Stamp for same 100*300 
 
 Drawing request to invest tlie balance of cash, and attend- 
 ing bespeaking investment 092 092 
 
 Copy order for taxing master, per folio . . . .004 004 
 
 Attending to get master in rotation marked . . .068 068 
 
 Drawing costs and copy, tbirty-two folios . . .15 4 16 4 
 
 Warrant * on leaving, copy and service . . . .036 056 
 
 "Warrant to tax,t copy and service 3 6 5 6 
 
 Attending taxing _ . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for copy defendant's costs, twenty-nine folios . .098 098 
 
 Attending taxing same 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for certificate J 10 100 
 
 Transcribing 020 020 
 
 Attending filing 068 068 
 
 Paid for office copv 020 020 
 
 Term fee, letters, &c 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Plaintiff's Costs mider Administration Suit commenced at Chambers hy a Creditor for 
 the Administration of his Debtor's Estate.% Inquiries taken — Certificate and 
 balance of Estate apportioned and paid met to Creditors. 
 
 Betwiten Plaintiffs 
 
 AND 
 
 Defendants. 
 
 The Bin of Costs of the above-named Plaintiffs to be taxed under Order of the 
 , bearing date the day of 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Instnictions for summons at chambers for administration of 
 
 estate 13 4 13 4 
 
 Preparing summons and duplicate ^^\ ^ n k n 
 
 PaiS for stamps ,^ ^ I n k n 
 
 Duplicate nl2nfi« 
 
 Attending to get same sealed ^„n non 
 
 Copy for Vice-chancellor . . ... -.-OSO 020, 
 
 Attending at the Record-office filing duplicate and ob- n n q 
 
 taining seal to original 068 068 
 
 Copy for service nfn n i n 
 
 Paid for stamp . • • ■ ■ ■ ' , I ^ ^ ^ ° ^ ° 
 
 Letter with original summons and copy to correspondent n q c 
 
 for service 036 036 
 
 • See anfe, pp. 340,341. t See arafe, p. 340. t ^Kte, p. 345. § ^«fe, Chap. IV. B. 2. 
 
470 PLA-iNTirrs' costs of administration summons. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 18S7. Feb. 1. 1867. 
 
 & s. d. & s. d. 
 
 Paid Ms charges and for aiRdavit of service (as paid). 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of plaintiff in support of summons 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, five folios 050 050 
 
 Ingrossing . . . . . . . . .018 018 
 
 Fair copy particulars of claim as an exhibit . . .020 020 
 
 Attending deponent reading over and to be sworn . .068 068 
 
 Marking exhibit -0 10 010 
 
 Commissioner's fee, oath, and exhibit (country case) .036 036 
 
 Paid filing '. .026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 018 018 
 
 Paid filing affidavit of service of summons . . .026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy . .'. . . _. . .020 020 
 Attending summons before chief clerk, affidavits read and 
 
 usual administration order made 13 4 13 4 
 
 Term fee,* letters, and messengers . . . . 15 118 
 
 Easter Term, 186 . 
 
 Paid for order . . . . . . . . 10 
 
 Attending passing and entering 6 
 
 Fair copy thereof for Vice-Chancellor, per folio . .00 
 Preparing summons to proceed thereon, and attending to 
 
 get same sealed . . . . . . . .06 
 
 Stamp thereon . . . . . . . .01 
 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor 2 
 
 Copy and service thereof . . . . . .04 
 
 3£ay %id. — Attending summons to proceed, affidavit of 
 administrator's receipts to be left in ten days, adver- 
 tisement ordered 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for copy administrator's accounts, and affidavit in 
 
 verification, eleven folios . . . . . .038 038 
 
 Copy for the country 038 038 
 
 Perusing same 038 038 
 
 Attending adjourned summons, accounts partly proceeded 
 
 with 13 4 13 4 
 
 Term fee,* letters, and messengers 15 118 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 June Wx. — Attending adjourned summons, accounts 
 
 vouched, advertisements to be issued, and day named 
 
 for claims to be brought in . . . , . 13 4 13 4 
 
 \Wi. — Drawing advertisement, attending to get same 
 
 signed and approved 068 13 4 
 
 Paid stamp 100 
 
 Attending Gazette office with advertisement . • .068 068 
 Paid for insertion and for copy Gazette (as paid). 
 
 Two copies for country papers 2 2 
 
 Writhig letter to OxfordJournaloSiC% and Oxford Chronicle 
 
 enclosing copy advertisement for two insertions in each 6 8 6 8 
 Paid charges for insertion Oxford Journal (as paid). 
 
 »ji)!«e,pp.367,410. 
 
 
 
 8 
 4 
 
 1 
 13 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 3 
 2 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 6 
 
TLAIXTIFFS' COSTS OF ADMINISTEATION SUMMONS. 471 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Peb. 1, 1S.57. Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 Tlie like Oxford Chronicle (as paid). s. s. d. & s. a. 
 
 Copy for tlie Times 010 010 
 
 Attending directing- two insertions . . . . ! 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid for insertions (as paid). 
 
 Perusing affidayits of claimants, and attendances searching 
 
 for claims entered, and on the several appointments for 
 
 hearing same, fifteen claims entered' . . . . 1 11 6 3 3 
 
 Paid for office copy affidavit of claim, of ten folios . .034 084 
 
 Do. do. of eight folios .028 028 
 
 . Do. do. of nine folios . .030 030 
 
 The like of other claimants (as paid). 
 
 Jufy JlOth.—AtteTiAing adjom-ned summons, second and 
 
 third inquiries -were proceeded vrith . . . .068 068 
 Preparing list of debts aUowed by chief clerk, twenty 
 
 , folios, fair copy . . . " 13 4 16 8 
 
 Copy certificate, twenty-six folios 8 8 8 8 
 
 Close copy ._ ." 088 088 
 
 Attending settling same 13 4 13 4 
 
 Ingi'ossing certificate 088 088 
 
 Paid for stamp 100 100 
 
 Calculating interest on the respective debts, sixteen in 
 
 number, per hour . . . . . . .068 068 
 
 Auff. 2/1(1 — Attending summons, certificate signed by chief 
 
 clerk 068 068 
 
 Paid for office copy 08 8088 
 
 Attending bespeaking and for same 6 8 6 8 
 
 Tenn fee,t letters, and messengers 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 3fichaelmas Term, 186 . 
 
 Preparing summons for further consideration of order, and 
 
 attending to get same sealed 
 Stamp for same .... 
 Copy for the Vice-Chancellor . 
 The like for defendant, and service . 
 Attending .summons when monej' in administrator's hands 
 
 ordered to be paid into Coui-t, and directions given for 
 
 taxation of costs and computation of subsequent interest 
 
 and payment to creditors ...... 
 
 Attending to settle minutes before registrar 
 
 Paid for order ........ 
 
 Attending passing . 
 
 Attending Accountant-General with order, and bespeaking 
 
 directions to pay in 
 
 Letter to defendant's solicitors that order left to enable 
 
 him to comply therewith 
 
 Copy order for Vice-Chancellor, per folio 
 
 Preparing summons to proceed ..... 
 
 Stamp for same 
 
 » Scale as follows :— 
 
 Wtere the number of claims do not exceed five . . . , 
 
 And for every additional number not exceeding five . 
 t Ante,v- 857,410. 
 
 6 
 1 
 2 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 3 
 2 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 6 
 10 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 1 
 13 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 1 
 
 6 
 4 
 8 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 8 
 
 
 10 
 10 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 1 1 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
472 defendants' costs or administration 
 
 N SUMMONS. 
 
 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb 
 
 .1,: 
 
 1867. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1, 1857. 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 £ 
 
 8. 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 Copy for the Vice-Chanoellor 
 
 Copy and service on defendant's solicitors 
 Preparing schedule of debts and fair copy, thirty folios . 
 6th. — Attending summons, subsequent interest to be cal- 
 culated and apportionment of debts made . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Copy certificate 16 
 
 Close copy 16 
 
 Attending settling same . . . . . . . 13 
 
 Calculating subsequent interest on debts due, sixteen in 
 
 number, per hour 6 
 
 Making the several apportionments, sixteen different cal- 
 culations 11 
 
 Ingrossing certificate . . . . . . . 16 
 
 Paid for stamp ... . . . . . .10 
 
 Attending on signing certificate . . . . .06 
 
 Paid for office copy . . . . . . . 16 
 
 Attending bespeaking same 6 
 
 Copy order for taxing master, per folio . . . .00 
 Attending for certificate of proper master . . .06 
 
 Drawing costs and copy, fifty-five folios . . . . 1 16 
 Warrant on leaving, copy and service (fund in court)* . 2 
 
 "Warrant to tax,t copy and service 2 
 
 Attending taxing . . . . . . . .10 
 
 Paid for copy defendant's costs, 41 folios . . . 13 
 
 Attending taxing 13 
 
 Transcribing certificate . . . . . . .02 
 
 Attending filing . . . . . . . ,06 
 
 Paid for office copy 2 
 
 Term fee,| letters, and messengers 15 
 
 Country .......... 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 16 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 1 16 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 DEFENDANTS' COSTS.— SUMMONS AT CHAMBEES.§ 
 
 In the matter of 
 
 A. B. 
 
 V. 
 
 C. D. 
 
 The Sill of Costs of the Defendant as between Solicitor and Client, including costs, 
 charges, and expenses,]] prope)'ly incurred by her as administrairix of fl 
 
 (not already allowed to her) under the order of the 
 bearing date the day of 186 
 
 (Sere insert any charges having relation to the Estate before tlie Suit loas com- 
 menced.') 
 
 Hilary Tei-m, 186 . Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Instructions to defend . . . . . .068 13 4 
 
 Entering appearance for defendant 6 8 6 8 
 
 * Ante, p. 840. t Ante, p. 340. t Ante, pp. 3S7, 410. § See ante, Cliap. III. s. ix. || Ante, p. 2. 
 T[ A£ to costs of executors and administrators in administration suits, see ante, pp. 119-124. 
 
dependants' costs oe administration • sltmmons. 473 
 
 Lower. Scale. 
 
 F«b. 1, 1857. 
 
 & s. d. 
 
 Stamp thereon 7 
 
 Notice thereof 2 6 
 
 Paid for copy aifidarit in support of summons, six folios .020 
 JUTarch 2'2)id. — Attending summons, order made for admin- 
 istration of estate 13 4 
 
 Attending settling minutes . . . . . .068 
 
 Attending passing order 6 8 
 
 Attending summons to consider decree, when the accomits 
 directed to he hronght in, and advertisement issued, 
 
 and summons adjourned 6 8 
 
 Insti'uctions for affidavit as to accounts . . . .068 
 Drawing and ingTOSsing same, sixty-eight folios . . 4 10 8 
 Writing administratrix; therewith, and with full instruc- 
 tions . . . . . . . . . .050 
 
 Paid postage 016 
 
 Paid her expenses to town on the business of the accoimts 1 10 6 
 
 Attending her to he sworn 6 8 
 
 Marking exhihit . . . . . . . .010 
 
 Paid oath and exhibit 2 6 
 
 Paid filing affidavit . . ._ . . . .026 
 
 Paid for office copy affidavit, four folios . . . .014 
 
 Instructions for aiEdavit of Mr. , auctioneer, as to the 
 
 fairness in value of the articles retained or purchased by 
 
 the administratrix . . . . . . .068 
 
 Drawing and ingrossing, fom- folios 5 4 
 
 Attending him to be sworn 6 8 
 
 Paid oath, and filing 4 
 
 Paid for office copy 14 
 
 April 5<A.— Attending adjourned summons, further ad- 
 
 iom'ned for evidence as to next of kin . . . 13 4 
 
 Term fee,* lettere, &c 15 
 
 Country 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 rf. 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 10 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 1 10 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Easter Term, 186 . 
 
 April IQth. — Attending adjourned summons on the 
 
 accounts . . . • • • • • . lo 
 
 Paid for copy affidavit of as to next of kin and 
 
 exhibits, twenty folios 6 
 
 Paid for copy affidavit of , four folios . . .01 
 
 Perusing same, per folio 
 
 Close copy • • • ,r ' 
 
 25<A.— Attending summons, further adjourned till May 
 
 5th i • ■ ° ^^ 
 
 Writing administratrix reporting progress of accounts, 
 
 and with respect to outstanding personalty . .03 
 
 May 5^4— Attending adjourned summons, further ad- 
 journed to enable outstanding estate to be disposed of . 6 
 (Here introduce all proper charges relating thereto.) 
 Instructions for further affidavit as to receipts and 
 
 payments " 
 
 »yln(e, pp. 357,410. 
 
 6 
 
 13 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 8 
 
 1 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 3 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 8 6 
 
474 defendants' costs of administration summons. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 9 4 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 9 
 
 6 8 
 1 6 
 5 
 
 13 
 2 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 3 
 3 
 
 13 
 6 
 
 6 8 6 8 
 
 10 
 3 
 
 2 4 
 6 
 13 
 
 Drawing and ingrossing same, seven folios 
 Writing administratrix therewitli, and witli full instruc- 
 tions 03603 
 
 Paid oath 02602 
 
 Paid lier expenses to be sworn (eleven miles) . . 15 15 
 
 Attending at Bank of England to bespeak power to sell 
 
 stock .......... 
 
 Paid for same 1 
 
 Writing therewith, and full instructions for execution . 
 31si.— Attending adjourned simimons, further adjourned 
 
 until 14th June 
 
 Paid filing further affidavit 
 
 Paid for office copy affidavit, four folios . . .0 
 
 Close copy 
 
 Perusing ......... 
 
 Paid for copy draft certificate, eleven folios . . .0 
 
 Close copy 
 
 Attending summons on further consideration of order, and 
 
 same adjourned to be heard in Court .... 
 Perusing the proposed minutes, making considerable 
 
 alterations therein, and attending arranging same . 6 
 
 Drawing brief on further consideration, three sheets . 1 
 
 Fair copy for counsel .... 
 Copy minutes for counsel 
 Drawing observations* for coimsel, and copy 
 Paid Mr. with brief, and clerk . 
 
 Attending him ..... 
 
 Qth. — Attending Court, order made 
 
 Or according to circumstances, not to exceed 
 Close copy minutes (nine sides) 
 Attending settling .... 
 
 Oi: at. taxing master's discretion not to exceed 
 Attending passing order .... 
 
 If not heard in Com't, but order directed to be made by chief clerk, the 
 charges are — 
 
 Attending settling minutes . . . . . .068 
 
 Attending passing order 6 8 
 
 Writing broker, with power and directions to transfer .036 
 Attending by appointment, making the transfer as 
 
 attorney ...... 
 
 Paid brokerage (as paid). 
 
 Paid for accountant-general's certificate . . . .01 
 
 Instructions for affidavit for return of probate duty . 6 
 
 Drawing same, thirteen folios 13 
 
 Ingi-ossing .04 
 
 Paid stamp (in the country) 2 
 
 Attending deponent reading over and to be sworn . .06 
 
 Paid oath and exhibit 3 
 
 Marking exhibit 1 
 
 Attending at Stamp Office with same, when fm-ther 
 
 evidence required . . . .' . , .068 068 
 
 10 
 3 
 10 
 2 4 
 
 13 
 3 3 
 13 
 
 13 
 13 
 3 
 
 13 4 13 4 
 
 1 
 6 
 13 
 4 
 
 
 
 • As to costs of observations for counsel, see ante, p. 354. 
 
Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 1, 1857. 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 rl. 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 applicant's costs op summons. 475 
 
 Lowei' Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Insti-uctions for affidaTit of in support . .068 
 
 Dra-sving- and ingrossing same, five folios . . .068 
 
 Attending- deponent to be sworn 6 8 
 
 Paid oatli 016 
 
 Attending at Somerset House tterewitli, affidavit con- 
 sidered sufficient . . . . . _ .068 
 Attending afterwards for warrant, entering same, and to 
 receiver-general's receiving the amoimt and giving 
 
 receipt 068 068 
 
 Instructions for affidavit to verify residue to be paid into 
 
 Court- . 068 068 
 
 Drawing and mgrossing 068 068 
 
 Attending to be sworn 068 068 
 
 Paid oatb and filing 040 040 
 
 Paid for office copy 018 018 
 
 Attending aecoimtant-general for directions to pay in cash, 
 and attending at the Bank to pay in and afterwards 
 
 to file receiptt 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for office copy accountant-general's receipt . .018 018 
 Dravfing this biU of costs and copy, twenty-nine folios . 19 4 19 4 
 TTarrant on leaving, copy and servicej . . . .036 056 
 
 Warrant to tax, copy and service 3 6 5 6 
 
 Attending taxing 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for copy plaintilT's costs, 32 folios . . . 10 8 10 8 
 
 Attending taxing 13 4 13 4 
 
 Tei-m fee, letters, &c.§ 16 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 APPLIC.-VJs'T'S COSTS OF SUMMONS 
 Originating at Charniersfor Appointment of Guardian and Maintenance for Infant.^ 
 in Cfjanaru. 
 
 Re 
 
 an Infant. 
 The BUI of Costs of to he taxed as between Solicitor and 
 
 Client, under order hearing date the day of 
 
 Easter Term, 186 : 
 
 Oct. 186 . — Attending you as to your being appointed 
 guardian of the infant, long conference thereon, entering 
 fully into the matter and advising . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Writing one of the executors, explaining, and request- 
 ing information as to the nature of funds applicable 
 for maintenance . . . . . . . .050 050 
 
 Attending him, when he informed me that he had con- 
 sulted his solicitor, and was willing that the infant 
 should be made a ward in Chancery . . . .068 068 
 
 Writing you fully the result of the above interview .036 036 
 
 * Unless certified by the taxing master. t Sec General Directions, p. 427. 
 
 X See ante, pp. -340, 541. § Ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
 tl As to costs of infants, see ante. Chap. IV. s. viii. 
 
476 applicant's costs of summons. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higlier Scaler 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1867. 
 £, s. d. £, s. d. 
 ISth.—Wntrng Mr. , executors' 
 
 solicitor, as to proposed guardianship of infant, and 
 
 for the trustees' views thereon 5 5 
 
 Attending you in long conference on result of interview 
 had with the maternal relatives, who had no objection 
 to your being appointed guardian, but they wished Mr. 
 Johnson to be joined in the oifice, and advising your 
 acquiescence therein . . . . . . .068 068 
 
 Writing trustees' solicitor thereof, and that summons 
 would be taken out for appointment of guardians ac- 
 cordingly .. . 036 036 
 
 Drawing and fair copy authority to issue summons as 
 next friend of infant, and attending applicant therewith 
 for signature . . . . . . . .068 
 
 Instructions to commence proceedings . . . . 13 4 
 
 Preparing summons for guardian and maintenance, and 
 
 duplicate, and attending to issue 13 4 
 
 Paid for summons 6 
 
 Duplicate 010 
 
 Attending at chambers to get duplicate examined and sealed 6 8 
 Attending at Record and Writ Clerk's to file duplicate 
 
 and examine, &c. 6 8 
 
 Stamp 010 
 
 Copy for service 2 
 
 Copy summons for "Vice-Chancellor 2 
 
 Attending obtaining undertaking to appear . . .068 
 Journey to Chester to see trustees' solicitor, obtaining 
 full particulars from him to embody in our affidavits, 
 and discussing with him and settling amount of pro- 
 posed allowance for maintenance . . . .220 220 
 Paid railway and expenses (as paid) 
 Attending Mr. as to the application, and 
 
 arranging the affidavits to be prepared by each party .068 068 
 Dec. 6th. — Instructions for your affidavit . . .068 068 
 
 Drawing same forty-three folios 2 3 2 3 
 
 Writing you therewith for perusal, and to obtain certificate 
 
 of father's death • .036 036 
 
 Writing trustees' solicitor with dates, names, and parti- 
 culars, and requesting him to obtain certificates of births, 
 
 deaths, and marriage 050 050 
 
 Paid his charges (as paid). 
 
 Ingrossing your affidavit . . . . . . 14 4 
 
 Paid oath and exhibit 3 6 
 
 Marking exhibits each 10 
 
 Paid filing 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 14 4 
 
 Attending summons, order made for guardians and main- 
 tenance 13 4 
 
 Or according to chief clerk's certificate. 
 Writing you thereof, and to make all due arrangements 3 6 
 
 Term fee,* &c 15 
 
 Or in country agency case 
 
 * See ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 5 
 5 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 5 
 2 
 2 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 14 
 3 
 1 
 2 
 14 
 
 4 
 6 
 
 6 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 15 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 8 
 
COSTS OF PARTY APPEARING ON SUMMONS. 477 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 JSilani Term, 186 . I'eb. i, 1S57. Feb. i, 1857. 
 
 „ . , J -I £ s. d. £, s. d. 
 
 Copy minutes 020 020 
 
 Attending settling 068 13 4 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Attending passing 068 13 4 
 
 Drawing costs and copy, twenty-two folios . , . 14 8 14 8 
 
 Attending settling with, cliief clerk . . . .068 068 
 
 Term fee, &c. 15 15 
 
 Or in country agency case 6 8 
 
 Cost of Parti/ appearing on Su7nmmis for Appointment of Quardian and Allowance 
 for Maintenance of Infant* 
 
 3En Cfjaiiari). 
 
 In the Mcrtter of 
 
 The Bill of Costs, Charges, and Expenses t of and relating to an Application 
 for the Appointment of a Quardian, and for an Allmoance for the Maintenance 
 of an Infant. 
 
 Oct. &Oth. — Attending Mr. one of tke trustees, 
 
 conferring fully as to maMng Miss a ward 
 
 in Chancery ; perusing and considering the WiU, and 
 
 conferring as to the investments, and taking down full 
 
 particulars of property 13 4 13 4 
 
 Nov. 9<A.— Attending him again on the same subject, and 
 
 conferring upon his interriew had with the aunt of the 
 
 infant, and of the proposed application for guardian to 
 
 be appointed __. . .068 068 
 
 Ti&th. — Long attendance on the trustees, advising as to cor- 
 respondence that had taken place between the family, 
 
 and as to who should be appointed guardians ; when 
 
 ^Mr. consented to act jointly with the aunt, in the 
 
 event of the Court approving of the appointment . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Writing to Messrs. , informing them fully 
 
 the wish of the parties 060 050 
 
 Instructiona for case for opinion of counsel . . .068 068 
 
 Drawing same, per folio 008 008 
 
 Fair copv, per folio 004 00^ 
 
 Copy will to accompany same, per folio . . . .004 004 
 Attending ^Ir. with case for his opinion . . .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 246 246 
 
 Copy opinion 2 2 
 
 Perusing and considering opinion, and attending the 
 
 trustees, conferring thereon, and advising as to follow- 
 ing same out «flQ ni?5 
 
 Instructions to defend ncfl cat 
 
 Instructions to appear to summons /^ 5 S r^ « q 
 
 Attending giving undertaking to appear . . . .068 " " ° 
 
 Paidstamp 7 7 
 
 Notice thereof 026 O^b 
 
 « Ante, Chap. lY. s. vii. t ^^nte, p. 2. 
 
478 COSTS OF PARTY APPEASING ON SUMMONS. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. £ s. a. 
 
 Attending solicitor for tlie applicant as to appointment of 
 
 guardians, giving full ioformation as to the funds, &c. 
 
 in order to co-operate in the mutual appointment of the 
 
 proposed guardians 068 068 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of Sir. as to appointment 
 
 of guardians 068 068 
 
 Drawing same, eleven folios . . . . . . 11 11 
 
 Attending him reading over same vchen he was unable to 
 
 supply the full particulars as to the exact dates, and 
 
 attending Mr. when he supplied me with same 6 8 6 8 
 
 Ingrossing affidavit 038 038 
 
 Attending defendant to be sworn 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid oath 016 016 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 038 038 
 
 Notice of filing 026 026 
 
 Preparing form of consent to act as guardian, fair copy .026 026 
 
 Attending Mr. at his house, when he signed same 6 8 6 8 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of verification and fitness . .068 06? 
 
 Drawing same, seven folios . . . . . .070 070 
 
 Ingrossing 024 024 
 
 Attending to be sworn thereto 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid oath and two exhibits 036 036 
 
 Marking two exhibits 020 020 
 
 Paid filing 026 020 
 
 Paid for office copy 024 024 
 
 Notice of filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for copy affidavit of applicant, forty-three folios . 14 4 14 4 
 
 Perusing same 14 4 14 4 
 
 Close copy • . 14 4 14 4 
 
 Attending summons, order made appointing guardians, 
 
 and 130/. fixed for maintenance 13 4 13 4 
 
 Termfee* 15 15 
 
 Or in country agency case ...... 118 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 , 
 
 Copy minutes 020 020 
 
 Attending settling 068 13 4 
 
 Attending passing order .068 13 4 
 
 Attending bespeaking, and for office copy order . .068 068 
 
 Paid for same 028 028 
 
 Drawing costs and copy, thirty folios . . . .10 10 
 
 Attending taxing* 13 4 13 4 
 
 Attending taxing applicant's costs 6 8 6 8 
 
 Term fee,t &c ! 15 15 
 
 Or m country agency case 15 118 
 
 * See ante, pp. 340, 341. ^ ^^te, pp. 357, 410. 
 
trustees' costs — MAINTENANCE. 
 
 479 
 
 £ 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 1 3 
 6 
 
 6 
 13 
 13 
 5 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 18S7. 
 
 
 
 
 
 £ s. 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 1 3 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 13 
 
 1 1 
 
 Costs of Trustees,'' u-here Guardians appointed hy Will , without Power of 3Iaiii 
 
 tenance, under Order made at Chambers. 
 in Cijaitcrn). 
 
 Ih the matter of 
 an Infant. 
 
 The Bill of Costs of the above-named Infant by 
 
 his next friend,* and of the Trustees^ of the Will. 
 
 186 —July Oi-/;.— Attending Mi'. , 
 
 one of tlie trustees of the ■will of the 
 
 testator, and considering the terms thereof, there being 
 no pofrer of maintenance therein ; advising application ^^\ ®?jl^- 
 to the Com-t, irhen he instructed me to take counsel's % ' i rf.' 
 opinion thereon ..... 
 
 Drawing and fair copy case accordiagly . 
 
 Copy will to accompany same, six sheets 
 
 Paid ilr. to advise . 
 
 Attending him ..... 
 
 Counsel having advised an application to Judge at cham- 
 bers, dra'wing consent of mother to act as next friend 
 of infant, attending her when she signed same 
 
 Instructions for summons for maintenance 
 
 Preparing original summons and duplicate 
 
 Paid for stamp 
 
 Duplicate ......... 
 
 Attending at chambers to get same examined and sealed . 
 
 Copy to leave at chambers ...... 
 
 Copy summons to file ....... 
 
 Paid for stamps 
 
 Attending at the Record and Writ Clerk's Office, filing 
 duplicate summons, and getting original examined and 
 stamped . . . . . . ■ . » . 
 
 Stamp 
 
 Service of summons on trustees 
 
 Instructions for affidavit in support of application . . 
 
 Drawing same, twenty-two folios 1 
 
 Journey to , to procure certificates of the 
 marnage, of the births of childi'en, and death of the 
 father 
 
 Paid gig hire. 
 
 Paid vicar for searches and four certificates (as paid). 
 
 Writino- Mr. , the trustee, to attend and make 
 affidavit 
 
 Ingrossing affidavit .... 
 
 Attending him to be sworn 
 
 Paid oath and four exhibits 
 
 Marking each exhibit .... 
 
 Paid filing affidavit .... 
 
 Paid for office copy .... 
 
 August.— M.t%n^g the summons, further information re^ 
 quired before order made 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 110 110 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 / 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 G 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 '•^ 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 G 8 8 
 
 » As to costs of next friencl of infants, see ante, Ohap. VI. s. vli. 
 t As to costs of trustees, see ante, Clinp. YI. s. xiil. 
 
480 plaintiffs' costs— special case. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 & s. d. 
 Attending the trusteeSj obtaining the necessary informa- 
 tion, and writing agent thereon 6 8 
 
 Attending adjourned summons, order made . . . 13 4 
 
 Close copy minutes 2 
 
 Attending to settle 6 8 
 
 Paid for order 10 
 
 Attending to pass same 6 8 
 
 Drawing bill of costs, and copy,* ten folios . . .068 
 Attending taxing . . . . . . . .068 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c 15 
 
 Country 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 
 
 I, 1867. 
 
 £ 
 
 £. 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 PLAINTIFFS' COSTS ON SPECIAL CASE,J 
 
 And Costs of Appointment of Special Guardian, the Plaintiffs being Infants. 
 
 Between, &c. 
 
 The Bill of Costs of the said , heing respectively 
 
 Infants, by , their Special Guardian, appointed 
 
 fur the purposes of this Case, to he taxed as between Solicitor and Client, under 
 Order of 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions for special case 
 Copy will of testatrix (7 B. S.) 
 The like of testator (3 B. S.) . 
 Drawing case, sixty-six folios, fair copy 
 Fee to counsel to settle . 
 Attending him . .* . . 
 
 Two copies for defendants 
 
 Attending Mr. with same for defendants . 
 
 The like, Mr. for other defendants . 
 
 Attending , explaining the nature and duties 
 
 of guardian, in order to have a proper party appointed . 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 3 
 
 4 
 
 1 3 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 3 6 
 
 
 
 3 6 
 
 
 
 3 5 
 
 6 
 
 3 5 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 4 
 
 
 
 2 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 6 
 
 (^Attendances on alteration of fecial Case, if any.") 
 
 Attending producing documents set out in special case for 
 
 examination of Mr. on behalf of defendants 6 8 6 8 
 
 The like to Mr. on behalf of other 
 
 defendants 068 068 
 
 6 8 
 
 Paid fee on resettling case 1 
 
 Attending him 
 
 Having received alterations on behalf of defendants, peru- 
 sing and considering same 6 8 6 
 
 Attending counsel therewith, and afterwards on defendants' 
 
 solicitors for same to be signed by their counsel . . 
 
 The like for the other defendants 
 
 3 6 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 
 * 4»!(c, p. 340. t^Mte, pp. 367,410. t As to costs of special case, see ajife, Chap, Y. s. iy. 
 
plaintiff's costs op special case. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of upon which to 
 
 appoint _ special guardian to 
 
 the plaintiifs being infants 6 8 
 
 Drawing same, five folios 5 
 
 Ingi-ossing . . ' 18 
 
 Attending reading over and to be sworn . . . .068 
 Paid oath and filing . . . . , . .040 
 
 Paid for office copy 18 
 
 Term fee,* letters, and messengers 16 
 
 Or in country agency case ..... 
 
 481 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 Fell. 1,1807. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 6 
 
 Eastm- Tei-m, 186 . 
 
 Instructions to counsel to move to appoint guardian . 
 Fee to him and clerk ....... 
 
 Attending him ........ 
 
 Attending Court, order made 
 
 Attending passing order 
 
 Paid for order ......... 
 
 Having received back special case signed by all the defen- 
 dants' counsel, attending my counsel to sign same 
 Fee to him and clerk to sign . 
 Ingrossing special case, per folio 
 Stamp for same . . . . • 
 
 Notice of filing two copies and services . 
 Drawing notice of motion to set down special 
 Two copies and services .... 
 
 Instructions for and drawing affidavit of plaintiif 's solicitor 
 
 in support as to facts stated in case, five folios 
 Attending to be sworn 
 Paid oath and filing 
 Paid for office copy 
 Drawing and ingi'ossing affidavit of 
 
 life, two folios 
 Attending to be sworn 
 Paid oath and filing 
 Paid for office copy 
 Paid for certificate of case being filed 
 Attending for same 
 Drawing notice of motion for leave 
 argument .... 
 
 Brief affidavit of plaintiif 's solicitor 
 Copy notice of motion to annex 
 Fee to counsel and clerk . 
 Attending him 
 
 Copy special case for the Court 
 Attending Court, order made . 
 Attending to bespeak order 
 Paid for order 
 
 Term fee,t letters, and messengers 
 Or in country agency case . 
 
 death of 
 
 to set down case for 
 
 tenant for 
 
 2 6 
 
 13 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 6 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 2 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 
 3 4 
 10 
 13 6 
 6 8 
 12 
 13 4 
 6 8 
 10 
 15 
 
 2 
 
 1 3 
 6 
 13 
 13 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 6 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 5 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 1 2 
 13 
 6 8 
 6 
 16 
 6 8 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 * Ante, pp. 857, 410. 
 
 t Ante, pp. 357, 410. 
 
 I I 
 
482 
 
 DEFENDANTS COSTS OF SPECIAL CASE. 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Attending setting down special case 
 
 Notice . . ■ 
 
 Two brief copies case for counsel, seven- sheets each 
 Drawing observations and two fair copies, one sheet 
 Another copy of testatrix's will, seven sheets . 
 Thelike of testator'swillunderwhichpower given, threeB. S, 
 Fee to Mr, and clerk . 
 
 Attending him ..... 
 
 Term fee,* letters, and messengers . 
 Or in country agency case 
 
 Michaelmas Term. 
 
 and clerk 
 
 and clerk 
 
 Refresher to Mr. 
 
 Attending him 
 
 The like to Mr. 
 
 Attending him 
 
 Nov. IQtlv. — Attending Court, case in the paper 
 
 17^.— Thelike 
 
 \Sth. — Attending Court, case heard . 
 Or according to circumstances not to exceed 
 Attending with papers bespeaking minutes 
 Copy minutes ..... 
 
 Notice to settle, two copies and services . 
 Attending settling same t ■ ■ . 
 
 Preparing list of evidence read (if required by 
 Or per folio ...... 
 
 Paid for order 
 
 Notice to pass, two copies and services 
 Attending passing same 
 Copy order for taxing master, per folio . 
 Attending to get proper taxing master marked 
 Drawing costs and copy, eighteen folios . 
 Warrant on leaving, copy and service 
 Warrant % to tax copy, and service . 
 
 Attending taxing 
 
 Term fee,§ letters, and messengers . 
 Or in country agency case . 
 
 186 
 
 registi 
 
 rar) 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 & s. d. 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 6 8 
 13 4 
 
 1 3 
 
 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 ,0 15 
 118 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 4 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 13 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 110 
 2 2 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 12 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 15 
 6 8 
 
 COSTS OP DEFENDANTS ON SPECIAL CASE || 
 (as between Solicitor and Client generally~),% 
 Between, &c. 
 The Bill of Costs of the above-named Defendants • " 
 
 to be taxed of the day of 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 (Here insert any fair and reasonable charges for attendances upon any of the parties 
 intei'csted, or exemdors, in order to arrive at the stating of tlie case, or agreeing 
 to its being the form of proceeding.') 
 
 Instructions to defend proceedings 6 8 13 4 
 
 « Ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
 § Ante, p. 357. 
 
 t See General Directions, p. 427. 
 II See ante, Chap. V. s. iv. 
 
 t Aiite, p. 340. 
 IT Ante, p. 1. 
 
defendants' costs of special case. 
 
 483 
 
 Having received draft special case, attending Mr. 
 
 tliereon, when he requested copy thereof to he forwarded 
 to him, together with copy will 
 
 Copy case, sixty-six folios 
 
 Perusing and considering same on behalf of defendants . 
 
 Fee to Mr. to peruse and settle same on your 
 
 behalf .......... 
 
 Attending him 
 
 The parties requesting a conference, in order more fully to 
 instruct counsel to settle draft case, attending appoint- 
 ing same ......... 
 
 Attending conference ........ 
 
 Paid his fee, and clerk 
 
 Copy opinion . 
 
 Writing with same and advising thereon, and clerk's at- 
 tendance 
 
 23rd. — Having received draft case somewhat altered, 
 making alterations, and attending Mr. thereon 
 
 Adding his alterations, and attending returning case 
 
 April 7tk. — Attending plaintiff's solicitor on his returning 
 same with his counsel's further alterations, and on Mr. 
 who agreed thereto and signed the case 
 
 Making the necessary additions to copy special case . 
 
 Drawing retainer * and attending Mr. therewith 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk ....... 
 
 Term fee,t letters, and messengers 
 
 Or in country case 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 S, s. d. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 ,6 
 ,1 2 
 
 1 2 
 
 8 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 1 2 
 1 2 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 2 4 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 4 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 1 6 
 2 
 
 8 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 1 6 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 6 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 1 3 
 15 
 
 8 
 4 
 8 
 6 
 
 
 6 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 15 
 
 1 1 
 
 8 
 4 
 8 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Haster Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions to enter appearance, nine defendants . .10 
 See Scale as to number of defendants, ante. 
 
 Paid for stampsj 11 
 
 Notice thereof . . . . . . . .02 
 
 Brief copy notice of motion to set down case, and affidavit 
 
 in support 4 
 
 Attending counsel therewith 6 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 13 
 
 9th. — ^Attending court, order made 13 
 
 Term fee,§ letters, and messengers 15 
 
 Or in country agency case 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 8 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Two brief copies of special case for coimsel, seven brief 
 
 sheets each • ^ ^ 
 
 Two brief copies of Will under which power of appoint- 
 ment given (3 B.S.) each 10 
 
 Drawing observations, two sheets 
 
 Two fair copies for counsel 
 
 2 6 8 
 
 1 
 13 
 13 
 
 * Asto allowance of retainers to counsel, see ante, p. 353. t See ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
 t Ante, p. 428, note. § Ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
 I I 2 
 
484 
 
 petitionees' costs of petition — PURCHASE. 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 
 Paid him consultation fee, and .clerk 
 Attending him* .... 
 Attending consultation 
 Term fee, t letters, and messengers 
 Or in country case 
 
 Michaelmas Term, 186 . 
 
 Refresher to Mr. and clerk .... 
 
 Attending him 
 
 The like to Mr. and clerk .... 
 
 Attending him 
 
 Nov. Voth. — Attending Court, cause in the paper 
 
 ISiA.— The like 
 
 Attending Court, cause heard, and power held to be pro- 
 perly exercised , 
 
 Or according to circumstances not to exceed 
 
 Attending the diiferent members of the family, informing 
 them the result . • 
 
 Attending settling minutes X 
 
 Copy minutes 
 
 Attending passing order 
 
 Drawing this biU of costs and copy, twenty folios 
 
 Warrant on leaving, § copy and service 
 
 Warrant to tax,§ copy and service 
 
 Attending taxing 
 
 Term fee,|| letters, and messengers 
 
 Or in country case ....... 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 reb. \, 1857. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 & s. 
 
 d. 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 10 
 
 
 
 5 10 
 
 
 
 2 9 
 
 6 
 
 2 9 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 8 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 1 3 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 e 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 PETITIONERS' COSTS OF PETITION. 
 
 Costs of Trustees under Will beinff Vendors upon a Purchase made under Lands 
 Clauses Consolidation Aet,*\ tvliere Money paid into court therewider ; and an 
 Petition to get same out of court, 
 
 iit Cfjsntera. 
 
 In the matter of, 8fC. 
 
 The Pill of Costs of the Petitioners to he taxed under Order, hearing date the 
 day of 
 
 186 , June 12th. — Attending the petitioners, receiving 
 
 instructions from them to go through deeds, and prepare 
 
 abstract of title to 068 068 
 
 Drawing abstract accordingly, ten sheets (eight folios each 
 
 sheet), per sheet 068 068 
 
 » Ante, p. 364. t Ante, pp. 857. J See General Directions. § Ante,pp. 840-1. 
 
 II Ante, pp. 867, 410. t As to costs under Lands Clauaes Consolidation Act, see ante, Chap. V. s. i. 
 
petitionees' costs of petition— pckchase. 48o 
 
 Fair copy, each, slieet 
 
 Attendmg delivering same 
 
 21st. — Attending examination of deeds .... 
 Or 6s. 8d. each liour engaged. 
 
 Having received draft, attending at the printers for, and 
 obtaining copies of tlie Acts of Parliament imder which 
 the purchase made 
 
 Paid for same (as paid). 
 
 Drawing, and fair copy, instructions to lay before Mr 
 to settle draft 
 
 Attending him therewith 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 
 
 Copy requisitions upon title 
 
 Perusing same . 
 
 Perusing draft, three skins 
 
 Copy, folios 45 
 
 Copy plan attached . 
 
 Copy contract and agreement entered into for purchase 
 
 Attending 3Ir. (one of the peti- 
 
 tioners), conferring upon the requisitions when he 
 informed me that, having collected the rents for the 
 last twenty years, he could depose as to the identity of 
 the premises ........ 
 
 Drawing answers to requisitions and fair copy, per folio . 
 
 Fair copy ......... 
 
 Instructions for declaration as to identity of premises 
 
 Drawing same, sis folios ....... 
 
 Fair copy for approval of purchaser's solicitor 
 
 Attending returning draft, and conferring as to proposed 
 declaration, which was perfectly satisfactory 
 
 Ingrossing declaration ....... 
 
 Attending when declared to ..... . 
 
 Paid commissioners' fee ....... 
 
 Instructions for petition* to obtain money out of court 
 
 Drawing same, twenty-seven folios ..... 
 
 Attending Mr. therewith to settle 
 
 Paid>his fee and clerk 
 
 Ingrossing petition ........ 
 
 Attending presenting 
 
 Paid stamp ......... 
 
 Copy for the Vice-ChanceUor 
 
 Copy for service ........ 
 
 Service thereof ........ 
 
 Instructions for affidavit in support 
 
 Drawing same, twenty-two folios ..... 
 
 Ingrossing same ........ 
 
 Attending deponent to be sworn, and paid oath 
 
 If exhibits, marking each exhibit 
 
 Paid commissioners' fee, marking same .... 
 
 Paid filing 
 
 Paid for office copy . 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 £ s. d. 
 
 3 4 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 3 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 4 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 7 6 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 * As to petition, see ante, p. 205. 
 
486 petitionees' costs of petition — PUKCHASE. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 & s. d. & s. a. 
 Attending at , searching for and obtaining 
 certificate of death of testator, and examining same with 
 
 registry 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid search, and for extract 036 036 
 
 Attending at Homsey Church, searching for and obtaining 
 certificate of burial of , one of the trustees 
 
 of testator's will 18 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for same 026 026 
 
 Instructions for afiidavit of identity and examination .068 068 
 
 Drawing same, eight folios . . . . . .080 080 
 
 Ingrossing . . , 028 028 
 
 Attending two deponents to be sworn . . . .068 068 
 
 Marking two exhibits _. 020 020 
 
 Paid oaths and two exhibits . . . , . .050 050 
 
 Paid filing 026 026 
 
 Paid for office copy 028 028 
 
 Brief copy petition and affidavits, folios 27, 22, and 8=57, 
 
 six sheets 100 100 
 
 Drawing observations and fair copy, one sheet ... 10 
 
 Attending Mr. with brief . . . .068 068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 246 246 
 
 Attending Accountant-General bespeaking, and for certifi- 
 cate of fund in court 068 068 
 
 VMi. — Attending Court, order made as prayed . . 13 4 110 
 
 Or according to circumstances not to exceed . . 2 2 
 
 Attending registrar with papers bespeaking minutes .068 068 
 
 Copy minutes, five sides 026 026 
 
 Notice to settle 026 026 
 
 Attending settling 068 13 4 
 
 Or at taxing master's discretion not to exceed . .110 3 3 
 
 Preparing list of evidence (if required by registrar) . .068 068 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Notice to pass • .026 026 
 
 Attending passing 068 13 4 
 
 Paid for office copy accountant-general's certificate . .018 018 
 
 Attending bespeaking and for same 6 8 6 8 
 
 27iA. — Attending discussing my alterations in the draft 
 
 deed, and finally settling same for ingrossment . .068 068 
 March \d. — Attending with trustee receiving amount of 
 
 interest due in addition to cash paid into court . .068 068 
 Examining ingrossment of deed, three skins . . . 10 10 
 Attending the trustees, and arranging appointment to com- 
 plete, and informing purchaser's solicitors thereof .068 068 
 One of the trustees living in the country, drawing request 
 
 for power of attorney, and attending bespeaking same .068 068 
 Paid for same (as paid). 
 Clerk attending at Brighton, obtaining execution of power 
 
 of attorney, and of conveyance 1116 1116 
 
 Paid expenses 110 110 
 
 Affidavit of due execution of power, filling up, and attend- 
 ing to swear 068 068 
 
 Paid oath and exhibit . 036 036 
 
 Attendingleavingpower, and with parties to receive cheque 6 8 6 8 
 
vendors' costs of petiiion under lands clauses act. 487 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Attending appointment to complete, conveyance signed 
 
 Drawing this bill of costs and copy, thirty folios 
 
 Attending to get taxing master appointed 
 
 Copy order for taxing master, per folio 
 
 "Warrant on leaving costs, copy and service 
 
 Warrant to tax, copy and service ■" 
 
 Attending taxing 
 
 Paid for certificate . 
 
 Transcrihing . 
 
 Attending filing 
 
 Paid for ofiice copy . 
 
 Term fee,f letters, and messengers 
 
 In country .... 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 3 
 13 
 10 
 2 
 6 
 2 
 15 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 13 4 
 
 10 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 5 6 
 
 5 6 
 
 13 4 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 6 8 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 6 8 
 
 
 
 Vendors' CosU of Petition under purchase made' pursuant to Lands Clauses Con- 
 solidation Act, 1845 J — Petition for payment of Part of Purchase Money to Peti- 
 tioner — Pmcer of Attorney to receive same, ^ and Investment of Balance. 
 
 In C^anterj). 
 JUx PaHe 
 In the matter of 
 
 Railway Act, 18 
 Aiid in the matter of the Lands Clauses Cmisolidation Act, 1845. 
 
 The Bill of Costs, Charges, and Expenses ^ of the Petitioner to be taxed, under an 
 order dated the day of 186 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Jwie.— ;"Writing the railway solicitors as to the payment 
 of purchase money into court, and that, as soon as 
 
 3 6 
 
 3 
 
 3 6 3 6 
 
 certificate of payment into court received, the petition 
 
 should be proceeded with . . . . . . 
 
 "Writing them in reply to theirs, with computation of 
 
 interest to be paid by them into court .... 
 
 (Here insert proper charges for attendances and letters that may have been 
 
 necessary in order to bring the pm'chase to a completion.) 
 Letters, &c 5 5 
 
 Michaelmas Term, 186 . 
 
 December. — Instructions for petition for payment out of 
 court of part of purchase money to petitioner, invest- 
 ment of residue, and payment of dividends to peti- 
 tioner . . . 6 8 13 4 
 
 Drawing same, seventeen folios 17 17 
 
 Fee to 5lr. to settle and clerk . . .13 6 13 6 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Ingrossing petition 068 058 
 
 * See ante, pp. 340-1. + See ante, pp. 367, 410. 
 
 } See as to costs under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, Chap. T. s. i. ^Anie, p. 103. f Ante, pp. 1-2. 
 
488 vendors' costs of petition undee lands clauses act. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £, s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 Paid stamp ' 050 100 
 
 Attending presenting, and afterwards for same answered .068 068 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of petitioner in support . .068 068 
 
 Drawing same, twelve folios 12 12 
 
 Ingrossing 040 040 
 
 Instructions for aifidavit of Mr. in support .068 068 
 
 Drawing same, five folios 050 050 
 
 Ingrossing 018 018 
 
 Letter to solicitor in the country to get same sworn . .036 036 
 Paid his charges and Commissioner's fees. 
 
 Marking each exhibit 010 010 
 
 Paid Commissionei-'s fee, marking same . . . .010 010 
 
 Copy petition for service 068 058 
 
 Service thereof 02.6 026 
 
 Affidavit of service 040 040 
 
 Paid oath, Is. Qd. filing 2s. 6rf. 4 4 
 
 Paid for office copy, three folios 10 10 
 
 Stamps, filing, aifidavit of petitioner and Mr. .050 050 
 
 Paid for office copies, twelve and five folios . . .058 058 
 Brief petition, and affidavits for coimsel, 17+12+6=34 
 
 folios, four sheets 13 4 13 4 
 
 Copy contract referred to in petition and affidavits for 
 
 counsel, two sheets 068 068 
 
 Drawing observations, one sheet 6 8 
 
 Fair copy 034 
 
 Fee to Mr. , and clerk, with brief . . .246 246 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Dec. Qth. — ^Attending Court, petition heard, and order 
 
 made 13 4 110 
 
 Or according to circumstances not to exceed . . 2 2 
 
 Attending registrar with papers bespeaking minutes .068 068 
 
 Close copy minutes, three sides 16 016 
 
 Notice to settle 026 026 
 
 Attending settling 068 13 4 
 
 Or at taxing master's discretion not to exceed . .110 3 3 
 Attending bespeaking office copy bank receipt and 
 
 accountant-general's certificate 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid for office copy 014 014 
 
 Preparing list of evidence (if required by registrar) . .068 068 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Notice to pass 026 026 
 
 Attending passing 6 8 13 4 
 
 Term feet and letters 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions for power of attorney J to receive the principal 
 
 sum payable to petitioner . . . , . .068 068 
 Paid for stamp and paper (as paid). 
 
 I^etter to solicitor to get same executed . . . .036 036 
 
 * Ante, p. 429, note. t Ante, pp. 357, 410. j Ante, p. 193. 
 
petitionee's costs. 489 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1SS7. 
 
 £ s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 Paid his cliarges attending to get same executed, 6s. 8d. ; 
 
 for affidavit of due execution, 6s. 8d. ; oath, 2s. 6d. ; and 
 
 letter returning same, 3s. 6rf. 19 4 19 4 
 
 Attending lodging power and bespeaking cheque, and 
 
 afterwards to receive same 068 068 
 
 Drawing request to accoimtant-general to invest the 
 
 balance 026 
 
 Attending him 6 8 
 
 Copy order for taxing master, per folio . . . .004 
 
 Attending obtaining reference 6 8 
 
 Drawing this bill of costs and copy, twenty folios . . 13 4 
 Warrant on leaving, copy and service . . . .036 
 
 The like to tax* 3 6 
 
 Attending taxing 6 8 
 
 Transcribing certificate . . . . . . .020 
 
 Paid stamp 10 
 
 Attending to file 6 8 
 
 Paid for office copy 2 
 
 Term fee,t letters, &c 15 
 
 Or in country agency case 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 Petitioner's Costs of Petition for liberty to receive Sond debt, and Investment of 
 
 satne in the Suit. 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions for petition for liberty to receive amount of 
 
 bond debt, and to pay same into court to be invested, 
 
 and interest paid to tenant for life . . , . .068 13 4 
 
 Drawing same, thirty folios 1 10 1 10 
 
 Ingrossmg . 10 10 
 
 Copy for the Vice-ChanceUor 10 10 
 
 Paid stamp t 050 100 
 
 Attending presenting and for fiat 6 8 6 8 
 
 Copy for service 10 10 
 
 Service thereof (each solicitor) 026 026 
 
 Brief copy for counsel 10 10 
 
 Drawing observation sheet t 000 068 
 
 Faircopy 000034 
 
 Fee to counsel 246 246 
 
 Attending him .• .068 068 
 
 Attending court, order made for executor to receive and 
 
 invest same 13 4 110 
 
 "Writing plaintifi', informing him of order . . .036 036 
 
 Copy minutes, six sides 030 030 
 
 Notice to settle 026 02 6 
 
 Attending settling ^ in n ? n n 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Notice to pass 026 026 
 
 « Ante, pp. 840-1. t Ante, pp. 357, 410. t Ante, p. 429, note t. 
 
490 
 
 petitionee's costs. 
 
 Attending passing 
 
 Attending making appointment to receive money and hand 
 
 over bond ......... 
 
 Writing defendant's solicitor thereof, and requesting 
 
 executor's attendaJice 
 
 Attending Accountant-General for direction to pay in, and 
 
 afterwards attending at the Bank of England to pay 
 
 same ..... 
 Where same shall amount to 1001. 
 
 • lOOOZ. 
 
 5000Z. 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 d. 
 
 a 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Drawing request to invest 
 
 Attending Accountant-General therewith 
 
 13 
 
 6 8 6 8 
 3 6 3 6 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 COSTS of PETITION on Plaintiff attaining twenty-one and for Discharge 
 
 of Receiver.* 
 
 {See Costs of Petition and Service thereof, p. 484.) 
 
 Attending searching at St. John's, Horselydown, for regis- 
 ter of baptism, and taking extract thereof 
 
 Paid for certificate 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of identity, and another deponent 
 verifying same 
 
 Drawing same, six folios ....... 
 
 lugrossing 
 
 Attending to be sworn 
 
 Marking exhibit . . T 
 
 Paid Commissioner's fee, marking 
 
 Paid oath and filing, two deponents 
 
 Paid for office copy 
 
 Brief copy petition for counsel and affidavits, per sheet 
 
 Fair copy 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 
 
 Attending him 
 
 Copy will for the Judge, one sheet 
 
 Attending court, receiver discharged, and recognisances 
 ordered to be vacated ....... 
 
 Copy minutes, seven sides ...... 
 
 Notice to settle (each solicitor) 
 
 Attending bespeaking, and for ofiice copy recognisances . 
 
 Paid for same (as paid). 
 
 Stamp t for order 
 
 Notice to pass (each solicitor) . 
 
 Attending passing 
 
 Attending registrar for directions for sale 
 
 Attending accountant-general therewith . 
 
 * See as to coats at receivers generally, ante, Chap. VI. s. xi. 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 2 4 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10' 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 t Ante, p. 
 
 429, note. 
 
 
respondent's costs. 491 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1,1867. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 JJrawinff letter from receiver to tenants to pay their rents 
 
 to plaintitij and four fair copies 10 10 
 
 Writing receiver's solicitor to get same signed . . .036 036 
 
 Attending RoUs secretary with order to vacate recogni- 
 sance 068 068 
 
 Attending clerk of Inrolments 068 068 
 
 Paid 110 110 
 
 Petitioner's Costs as between Solicitor and Client. Petition amended. 
 
 Attending court, petition called on and ordered to be 
 
 amended and brought on next petition day . . . 13 110 
 
 Drawing amendments, thirteen folios . . . . 13 13 
 
 Fee to counsel to settle 136 136 
 
 Attending him 068 068 
 
 Amending original petition, and copy for his Honour, 
 
 thirteen folios each 4 4 4 4 
 
 Amending each copy petition, thirteen folios . . each 4 4 4 4 
 
 Instructions for affidavit in support of amendments . .068 068 
 
 Drawing same, eighteen folios 18 18 
 
 Ingrossing 060 060 
 
 Attending to be sworn 068 068 
 
 Paid oath and filing 040 040 
 
 If any exhibits, marking each exhibit . . . .010 010 
 
 Paid commissioner's fee, marking 10 10 
 
 Paid for office copy 060 060 
 
 Brief for counsel, two sheets 068 068 
 
 Brief copy amendments, two sheets . . . .068 068 
 
 Attending court, petition heard, order made as prayed . 13 4 110 
 Attending Lord Chancellor's secretary, getting amendments 
 
 in original petition sealed 068 068 
 
 PespondenP s Costs on Petition of Plaintiff on Payment of Bond Debt and for Invest- 
 ment of same. 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Brief petition, four sheets 13 4 13 4 
 
 Drawing observations and fair copy one sheet ... 10 
 
 Fee to Mr. , with brief . . . .246 246 
 
 Attending him .068 068 
 
 Attending court, petition heard, executor to receive the 
 
 amount and invest same in the cause . . . . 13 4 110 
 
 Attending settling minutes * 068 13 4 
 
 Copy, six sides 030 030 
 
 Attending passing order 6 8 13 4 
 
 Writing executor for appointment 3 6 3 6 
 
 Attendmg plaintifi^'s solicitor, appointing Thursday next to 
 receive the amount and invest same, and writing de- 
 fendant thereof 068 068 
 
 * See General Directions, p. 427. 
 
492 
 
 APPLICANT S COSTS OF SUMMONS — NEW TRUSTEES. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 & s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 Attending him, receiving the amount, and afterwards to 
 
 the Bank of England paying in amoimt for investment 13 4 13 4 
 Paid executor's expenses , 
 
 Respondent's Costs — Petition amended. 
 
 Attending Court, petition called on and ordered to be 
 
 amended and brought on next petition day . . . 13 
 
 Brief copy amendments, two sheets 6 
 
 Paid for copy aifidavit in further support of petition, 
 
 eighteen folios . . . . . . .06 
 
 (If special, perusing same, per folio) . . . .00 
 
 Close copy . . . . . . . . .00 
 
 Brief copy for counsel, two sheets 6 
 
 Attending Court, order made as prayed 
 
 13 4 
 
 1 
 
 COSTS OF APPLICANT. 
 
 On summons at Chambers for appointment of new 
 Proceedings). 
 ill Cigancerj}. 
 
 In the matter of, Src 
 The Bill of Costs, Charges, and Expenses of 
 in this Matter, taxed pursuant to an Order, dated 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions for summons 
 
 Preparing summons and duplicate 
 
 Stampst for summons and duplicate .... 
 
 Copy summons for Judge ...... 
 
 Attending to get summons filled up and sealed 
 
 Four copies for service ....... 
 
 Stamps t •■•■■•... . 
 
 Attending filing duplicate and getting copies examined 
 
 and sealed 
 
 Attending for undertaking to appear for 
 
 The like, Messrs. for the 
 
 Instructions for afiidavit of in support of application 
 
 Drawing same, twenty-five folios 
 
 Fair copy .... 
 
 Attending deponent to be sworn 
 
 Paid oath and filing 
 
 Two notices of filing afiidavit . 
 
 Paid for office copy 
 
 Writing Mr. requesting him to produce probate 
 
 the Applicant 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 5 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 * Ab to costs of applicants under Trustee Acts, see atite. Chap. V. s. iii.; and as to where an anulica- 
 tion under this Act may be made in Chambers, see ZWt Consolidated Order, r. 1 . 
 t Anle^ p. 429, note. 
 
COSTS OF PARTY SERVED ON SUMMONS. 493 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 Attending summons, adjourned for consideration of Judge 6 8 
 Several attendances for the Vioe-Chancellor's decision, and 
 ultimately the Vice-Chancellor made the order (accord- 
 ing to certificate of allowance) 13 4 
 
 Attending settling minutes* 6 8 
 
 Notice to settle, each solicitor 2 6 
 
 Paid for order 10 
 
 Attending passing •068 
 
 Copy order for taxing master, per folio . . . .004 
 Attending to get master in rotation marked . , .068 
 Drawing bill of costs and copy, per folio . . .008 
 
 Warrant on leaving two copies and servicest . . .060 
 
 Ditto to ta^; 6 
 
 Attending taxing 6 8 
 
 Paid for copy costs of , 24 folios . .080 
 
 Attending taxing 6 8 
 
 Paid for copy costs of , 20 folios (id. per folio). .068 
 
 Attending taxing . . . . . . . .068 
 
 Paid for certificate 10 
 
 Transcribing (per folio) 4 
 
 Attending to file 6 8 
 
 Paid for office copy (per folio) 4 
 
 Term iee,t &c 15 
 
 Country case 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1807. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 a. 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 COSTS OF PAETY SERVED UPON SUMMONS AT CHAMBERS. 
 
 In the matter, Sfc. 
 The Bill of Costs, Charges, andExpemes of in this mutter, 
 
 taxed pursuant to an Order dated 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions to defend 068 13 4 
 
 Instructions to appear on summons 6 8 6 8 
 
 Attending giving undertaking to appear . . . .068 068 
 
 Stamp on appearance 070 070 
 
 Attending thereon 068 068 
 
 Notice thereof 026 026 
 
 Cony affidavit, per folio 004 004 
 
 Close copy 004 004 
 
 Perusing the same, if special (per folio) . . . .004 004 
 Attending summons, the Vice-Chancellor ordered the 
 
 matter^to stand over, and afterwards made the order . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Attending settUng minutes net niql 
 
 Attending passing order ^^o ?^ t t 
 
 Drawingbillaof costs and cojjy, folio (per foho) . .008 " 8 
 
 Warrant on leaving, two copies and services . . .060 080 
 
 * See General Directions, p. 427. t Ante, pp. 340, 341. t Ante, pp. 357, 410. 
 
494 plaintiff's costs — guardian and maintenance. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb 1.1857. Feb. 1,1867. 
 
 £, s. d. £ 8. d. 
 
 Warrant to tax, two copies and services* . . .060 080 
 
 Attending taxing . . . . ' . . .068 068 
 
 Paid for copy applicant's costs 
 
 Attending taxing . . . .. . . .'068 068 
 
 Paid for copy costs of , folios. 
 
 Attending taxing 068 068 
 
 Term fee,t &c 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 COSTS OF APPLICATION. 
 
 On Summons for the Appointment of Guardians to an Infant, and for Maintenance 
 (not originating Proceedings). 
 
 En CfiaiiterB. 
 
 In the matter of, Sro. 
 
 The mil of Costs of the above-named Plaintiff, as to-the Appointment of Guardians 
 of the said to be taxed under the Order hearing 
 
 date the day of (as between Solicitor and Client). 
 
 Easter Term, 186 . 
 
 Preparing summons for guardiansMp, and attending to get 
 
 same filled up and sealed 
 Stampt for same .... 
 Copy for tlie Vioe-Cliancellor . 
 Instructions for afiidavit in support 
 Drawing same, ten folios 
 Ingrossing affidayit 
 
 Attending deponent to be sworn thereto 
 Paid oatli and filing 
 Paid for ofiice copyj 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. 
 
 ability and responsibility of Mr. 
 
 guardians .... 
 Drawing same, five folios 
 Ingrossing same 
 Attending Hm to be sworn 
 Paid oatb and filing 
 Paid for oiRce copy§ 
 Instructions for affidavit of Mr. 
 
 respectability and responsibility of BIr. 
 
 the other guardian 
 
 Drawing same, four folios ..... 
 
 Ingrossing same ....... 
 
 Drawing and fair copy consent accepting same 
 Writing, enclosing same to him at 
 
 and giving him full instructions as to their return 
 
 as to respect- 
 one of the 
 
 as to the 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 3 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 3 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 5 
 
 6 8 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 
 
 3 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 3 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 5 
 
 18 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 18 
 
 6 
 4 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 5 5 
 
 * Ante, pp. 340, 341. t Ank, pp. 357,410. 
 
 \ II the order for the payment of costs include those of and incidental to the application all previous 
 costs ss to any arrangcanent for the appointment of gnardian3,phould be here inserted and as often as 
 they occur, until completion. § Ante, p. 403. 
 
plaintiff's costs— guardian and maintenance. 495 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 A s. d. £ s. ■ d. 
 
 Paid oath to same 026 026 
 
 Paid filiBg same 026 02G 
 
 Paid for otRce copy'^ 014 014 
 
 Notice of filing atiidavits 026 026 
 
 Copyt summons and service thereof . . . .046 046 
 Writing the second guardian, acknowledging receipt of 
 
 affidavit and consent 036 036 
 
 Alay 7th. — Attending summons, e-s-idence gone through, 
 
 and notice req^iured to be served upon the remaining 
 
 near relatives, and summons adjourned for Vice- 
 
 Chancellor 13 4 13 4 
 
 Or according to chief clerk's certificate. 
 
 Drawing notice to the remaining relatives . . .036 030 
 
 Ten fair copies thereof 100 100 
 
 Jime 1st. — Attending summons in the paper, but not 
 
 called on 6 8 10 
 
 8th. — ^Attending summons, guardians appointed . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Writing both guardians of the appointment . . .050 050 
 
 Attending settling minutes 068 13 4 
 
 Paid for order 10 0-100 
 
 Attending passing same 068 13 4 
 
 Copy order for guardians, and writing therewith advising 
 
 as to possession of infant . . . . . .056 056 
 
 One of the guardians residing in the country, and the 
 
 dividends of the fund in court being ordered to be paid 
 
 to both, drawing request for power of attorney to the 
 
 guardian in town, and signing same, and attending 
 
 bespeaking and for power 068 068 
 
 Paid for same (as paid). 
 
 Writing Mr. therewith, giving full instructions 
 
 as to execution . . . . . . . .050 050 
 
 Attending leaving power of attorney and bespeaking 
 
 cheque for dividends 068 068 
 
 Drawing bill of costs and copy, twenty folios . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Warrant on leaving, copy and service . , . .036 056 
 
 Warrant to proceed, copy and servicef . . • .036 056 
 
 Attending taxingf 068 068 
 
 Paid for copy costs of , ten folios . . . .034 034 
 
 Attending taxing same 068 068 
 
 Term iee,t letters, &c 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 « Anl(, p. 403. t Ante, pp. 340-1. t Antt, pp. 357, 410, 411. 
 
496 
 
 defendant's costs — SUMMONS. 
 
 COSTS OF DEFENDANT 
 
 (Or other Party served) on Summons for appointment of Guardians (not originating 
 
 Proceedings). 
 
 in Cljanterj;. 
 
 In the matter of, ^c. 
 
 The Costs of the Defendant of and incidental to the Application for Appointment of 
 Guardians and Maintenance of the Infant Plaintiff to he taxed under Order of 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Easter Term, 186 . i'*. i, 1867. j-eb. i, 1857. 
 
 '_ _ S, s. d. £, s. d. 
 Mag 7th.* — Attending summons for guardians, evidence 
 
 gone into, and adjourned till tne Vice-Clianoellor 
 
 attended chambers, and notice to be given to the infant's 
 
 relatives 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for copy affidavits! 070 070 
 
 Perusing same, per folio 004 004 
 
 Close copy 004 004 
 
 June 1st. — Attending adjourned summons, but tbe Vice- 
 
 Chancellor did not reach the case . . . .068 10 
 
 8th. — Attending adjourned summons, order made . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Attending passing orderf 068 13 4 
 
 Dravf^ing bill of costs and copy, six folios . . . .040 040 
 
 Attending taxing 068 068 
 
 Term fee, J letters, messengers, &c. . . . . 15 15 
 
 Country 068 
 
 COSTS OF DEFENDANT 
 
 On original Summons at Chambers dismissed with Costs. 
 3Eti CJaiTCjrs. 
 In the matter of the Estate of deceased. 
 
 A. B. 
 
 C. D. 
 
 Hilary Term, 186 . 
 
 Instructions to defend 068 13 4 
 
 Entering appearance 068 068 
 
 Paidstamp§ 070 070 
 
 Notice thereof, copy and service 2 6 2 6 
 
 Attending summons, same abandoned on return thereof, 
 bill being filed, plaintiff's solicitor did not attend, sum- 
 mons dismissed with costs 13 4 0134 
 
 Attending for order and entering 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paidstamp§ 10 100 
 
 * The biU should commence with such items (ii any incurred) as strictly relate to any arrangement or 
 proposed arrangement for the appointment of guardians. 
 t Ante, p. 403. t Ante, pp. 357, 410, 411 . § Ante, p. 429, note. 
 
COSTS OF INCUMBEANCERS. 497 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Drawing costs and copy, six folios 4 4 
 
 Attending chief clerk and taxing 6 8 6 8 
 
 Term fee,* letters, &c 15 15 
 
 Covmtry 068 
 
 COSTS OF AN INCUMBRANCER. 
 
 On a Ftmd in Court, appearing on Petitionf for payment of the several Incum- 
 brancers on the Fund. 
 
 Trinity Term, 186 ■ 
 
 Instructions to defend 068 13 4 
 
 Fair copyj petition, eighteen sheets . . . ,300 300 
 
 Drawing ohservations§, and fair copy, one sheet . . 10 
 
 Attending counsel wiii brief 068 068 
 
 Paid his ifee and clerk 246 246 
 
 Attending Court, petition heard and costs allowed . . 13 4 110 
 
 Copy minutes, eighteen sides 090 090 
 
 Attending settling minutes 6 8 13 4 
 
 Attending passing order 068 13 4 
 
 Drawing request for, and attending bespeaking power of 
 
 attorney 068 068 
 
 Paid for same (as paid). 
 
 Writing !Mr. with power of attorney, and 
 
 giving him full directions 060 050 
 
 Paid his charge 
 
 Attending leaving power, and afterwards receiving cheque 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing costs and copy, six folios 4 4 
 
 Warrant on leaving, copy and service . . , .036 056 
 
 Warrant to tpx, copy and service|| 3 6 5 6 
 
 Attending taxing 068 068 
 
 Term fee.H letters, &c 15 15 
 
 Countiy ...• 068 
 
 RECER'ER'S COSTS ^ 
 
 OF APPOINTMENT 
 ACCOUNT. 
 
 AND PASSING HIS 
 
 miary Term, 186 . 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 Instructions for drawing and ingrossing recognizances . I 
 Attending summons when same settled, and attending at >- 1 15 2 12 6 
 
 Judge's chambers for allowance thereof . . .J 
 Copies of draft for parties to whom copies are directed to 
 
 be handed 
 
 Paid for stamp and parchmenttt 2 2 
 
 Instructions for affidavit of sureties 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing and ingrossing same, four folios . . , ,054 064 
 
 * Ante, pp. 357, 410, 411. t See ante, pp. 126, 126, 231-3. t Ante, p. 403. 
 
 § Ante, p. 864. II Ante, pp. 340, 341. f Ante, pp. 367, 410, 411. 
 
 ** See as to coats of reoeivers, ante, Chap. VI. a. xi. tt Ante, p. 402, note. 
 
 K K 
 
498 beceiver's costs op appointment and passing account. 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1867. 
 
 £ s. d. £, s. d. 
 
 Attending sureties on their being swom thereto , .068 068 
 
 Paid oaths, filing, and for office copy. 
 
 Making appointment with receiver and his sureties, and 
 
 attending them on acknowledging recognisance . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid thereon . • 076 076 
 
 Attending to enrol recognisance 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid em-olling __. .076 076 
 
 Attending at Judge's chambers, when order appointing re- 
 ceiver made 068 13 4 
 
 Paid for order 10 100 
 
 Attending passing and to enter same . . . .068 13 4 
 
 Copy order for the Judge, per folio . . , ,004 004 
 
 Letters, &c 6 5 
 
 If the order appoints the receiver subject to his giving security, the following 
 charges in lieu of the above : — 
 
 Copy order for the Judge, per folio , . . .004 004 
 Preparing summons to proceed, and attending to get same 
 
 fiUed up and sealed at chambers 6 8 6 8 
 
 Paid stamp * 010 030 
 
 Copy summons to leave at chambers . . . .020 020 
 Copies to serve and service thereof on parties having 
 
 leave to attend 046 046 
 
 Attending thereon 068 13 4 
 
 The same charges as above relating to the recognizance. 
 
 Making copy certificate, six folios 2 2 
 
 Close copy 020 020 
 
 Copies for the parties to whom copies are directed to be 
 handed ......... 
 
 Attending adjourned summons when certificate settled ,068 13 4 
 
 Transcribing certificate 020 020 
 
 Paid for stamp 10 100 
 
 Attending appointment to sign 6 8 6 8 
 
 Attending to bespeak and for office copy certificate ■ .068 068 
 
 Paid for office copy 020 020 
 
 Letters, &c 6 5 
 
 Tm-m, 186 . 
 
 Drawing receiver's first account and copy, per folio . ,014 014 
 Preparing summons to proceed thereon, and attending to 
 
 get same filled up and sealed at chambers . , .068 068 
 
 Paid stamp 010 030 
 
 Copy summons to leave at chambers • . . , ,020 020 
 Copies and services on plaintifi' and each defendant having 
 
 leave to attend 046 046 
 
 Copies of account for parties to whom copies are directed 
 
 to be handed, per folio 004 004 
 
 Attending summons when accounts passed and costs 
 
 settled ,..,.,... 
 
 Entering account and duplicate in books per folio , .004 004 
 
 • Anie, p. 403. 
 
COSTS ON PASSING RECEIVER'S ACCOUNTS. 
 
 499 
 
 Paid for books 
 
 Instructions for affida-rit verifying account and duplicate . 
 Drawing and ingrossing same, five folios .... 
 Attendmg receiver on his being sworn .... 
 Paid oath (and two exhibits if sworn in the country) 
 
 Paid filing and for office copy* 
 
 Making copy* draft certificate of passing account, eight 
 
 folios 
 
 Close copy* 
 
 Copies* for the parties to whom copies are directed to be 
 
 handed, per folio 
 
 Attending settling draft certificate 
 
 Transcribing certificate 
 
 Paid stampf 
 
 Paid per-centage on £ 
 
 Attending appointment to sign certificate 
 
 Attending to Despeak and for office copy 
 
 Paid for office copy* 
 
 Drawing this bill of costs and copy, eight folios 
 
 Copies* for parties to whom copies are directed to be 
 
 handed, per folio 
 
 Attending to procure balance to pay into court 
 Attending Accountant-General for directions to pay balance 
 
 into the Bank, and attending to pay same, and to file 
 
 cashier's receipt J 
 
 Paid for office copy,* certificate of payment 
 
 Letters, &c 
 
 Lo-wer Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1867. 
 £ «. d. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Fob. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 6 
 4 
 4 
 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 6 
 2 
 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 4 6 
 4 2 
 
 2 
 2 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 2 8 
 2 8 
 
 
 6 
 2 
 10 
 
 4 
 8 
 8 
 
 
 4 
 13 4 
 2 8 
 10 
 
 6 
 6 
 2 
 e 
 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 2 8 
 5 4 
 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 8 
 
 4 
 6 8 
 
 13 
 1 
 5 
 
 4 
 8 
 
 
 13 4 
 18 
 10 
 
 Plaintiff's or Defendanfs Costs on passing Receiver's Accoimt. 
 
 Term, 186 . 
 
 Attending summons when account passed and costs settled 
 
 Close copy certificate* 028 028 
 
 Attending settling same . . ._. . .068 13 4 
 
 Drawing this bUl of costs and copy,§ four folios . .028 028 
 Copies for parties to whom copies§ are directed to be 
 
 handed 
 
 Attending appointment to sign certificate . . .068 068 
 Letters, &c 060060 
 
 * Ante, pp. 403, 427. 
 f Ante, pp. 340, 341, 403. 
 
 t Ante, p. 402, note. 
 
 } See General Directions, p. 427. 
 
 K K 2 
 
500 CONVEYANCING COSTS. 
 
 RECEIVERS COSTS on Passing his Final Account.* 
 
 The Sill of Costs of_ 
 
 the Receiver appointed in these Causes, on passing hisjmal Account. 
 The same Charges as in the preceding Bill for 
 
 draiving and fair Copy Account. — Summons to 
 
 proceed thereon, and Attendances, as the case may 
 
 be ; and then the following items : 
 
 Lower Soale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 & s. d. & ». i. 
 
 Attending depositing receiver's books at Record and Writ 
 
 clerk's office . . .; 068 068 
 
 Attending plaintiffs solicitors, and paying them tlie 
 
 amount due to plaintiff on passing final account, and 
 
 obtaining receipt . . . . . . .068 068 
 
 If tke balance is invested ..... 
 
 Attending accountant-general for directions to pay in 
 
 balance, and at tbe Bank to pay same in, and Mter- 
 
 wards to file receipt! . . . . . . 13 4 13 4 
 
 Paid for office copy accountant-general's receipt . .018 018 
 Paid for office copy recognizance ..... 
 
 Attending tbe Master of the RoUs' secretary witb same, 
 
 and obtaining certificate that final account passed, and 
 
 afterwards to the Rolls chapel, leaving order and 
 
 making appointment for vacating the recogiiizances 
 Attending clerk of Inrolments, recognizances vacated 
 
 Paid . 
 
 Copy authority for tenants to pay rents to plaintiff . 
 Attending receiver on his signing same, and afterwards on 
 
 plaintift's solicitors therewith 6 8 6 8 
 
 Drawing costs, &c. 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 ORDINARY CONVEYANCING CHARGES IN COMMON CASES. 
 
 {jill special Attendances relating to each matter must he introduced as they occur ; 
 these Precedents are framed more as a guide to the ordinary general and common 
 Charges.") 
 
 Ordinary Vendor's Solicitor's Charges on Agreement and Conveyance. 
 
 Attending you when you informed me that you had agreed with 
 Mr. for sale of your house at for the 
 
 sum of and advising agreement to be entered into 
 
 between you . . ■ 068 
 
 Attending you subsequently and taking instructions for agreement 
 
 to be sent to Mr. , solicitor 6 8 
 
 Drawing agreement, per folio 10 
 
 Fair copy for perusal of purchaser's solicitor, per folio , . ,004 
 
 Writing him therewith and clerk's attendance 5 
 
 Attending him on his returning same, going through his various 
 alterations, and in part explaining title to his satisfaction, and draft 
 agreement approved 0C8 
 
 * See ante. Chap. VI. s. xi. t See General Directions, p. 427. 
 
CONVEYANCING COSTS. 501 
 
 T -0 fair copies of agreement for signature, per folio, each . . .004 
 
 Attending attesting execution, thereof 6 8 
 
 Drawing abstract of your title to the premises, per sheet . . .068 
 
 Fair copy, each sheet 034 
 
 Attending purchaser's solicitor therewith, and afterwards attending 
 
 him matmg an appointment to compare same with deeds . .068 
 
 Attending examination of abstract with deeds (each hour) . .068 
 
 Perusing and considering requisitions upon title .... 
 
 This must entirely depend upon the length and the special nature 
 thereof, having reference to the abstract and the time engaged ; if 
 short requisitions, the usual charge would be . . . .068 
 
 If special and extending to any length, 13s. id. or 11. Is. as the circum- 
 stances of each case would disclose. 
 
 Attending you conferring on the requisitions and taking down full 
 
 instructions to answer same 6 8 
 
 Drawing replies thereto, each sheet 6 8 
 
 Fair copy, each sheet 3 4 
 
 Purchaser's solicitor having required to be furnished with an abstract 
 of the deeds recited in a former purchase deed and covenanted to be 
 produced, drawing abstract accordingly, per sheet . . . .068 
 
 Fair copy, per sheet 034 
 
 Writing him therewith, and where he could see the deeds, and clerk's 
 attendance . . . . . . . . . . .050 
 
 Writing the solicitor of Mr. to produce same pursuant to 
 
 his covenant, and that I would pay his charges . . . .036 
 
 Attending purchaser's solicitor after inspection of further deeds, and 
 conferring upon the requisitions, and satisfying him thereon by 
 reference to documents in my possession . . . . .008 
 
 Writing Mr. for amoimt of his charges, and clerk's attend- 
 
 ance paying same . . . . . . . . . .036 
 
 Paid his charges 
 
 Perusing draft conveyance, for every iifteen folios . . . .050 
 
 Fair copy to keep, per folio 4 
 
 Instructions to INIr. to settle same 6 8 
 
 Attending him . . . . . . . • ■ • .068 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 
 
 Attending returning draft approved . . .. ._. .068 
 Attending him on his calling, discussing my alterations therein, when 
 
 draft finally settled . . . 068 
 
 Examining engrossment, each skin of fifteen folios . _ . _ . .034 
 Attending purchaser's solicitor, when he informed me his client was 
 ready to complete, making appointment, and writing you thereof .008 
 
 Attending completion 13 4 
 
 Letters, &c 5 
 
 Ordinary Vendor's Solicitor's Charges — Sales by Auction. 
 
 Attending you upon your bringing me deeds, and taking instructions to 
 prepare abstract of title, in orde r to sell your interest in property at 
 
 by public auction . . ... 8 
 Drawing abstract accordingly, rach sheet . . . • _ • .008 
 AttendiSg you confening thereon, and taking down full particulars of 
 tenancy, and as to the taxes, &c., &c., for particulars and conditions 
 (Jfsale 6 8 
 
502 CONVEYANCINU COSTS. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 Drawing particulars and conditions of sale, per folio . . . .010 
 
 Fair copy for auctioneer, eacli folio 4 
 
 Attending auctioneer thereon, and fully instructing Um . . .068 
 
 Attending counsel therewitli, to settle 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk 
 
 Fair copy for the printer, per foUo 4 
 
 Examining proof sheet, 2d per folio ; and attending auctioneer there- 
 with andthereon 068 
 
 Attending auctioneer preTious to sale, fully instructing him, and 
 
 arranging reserved Hading , 6 8 
 
 Attendmg sale . 110 
 
 Fair copy abstract for purchaser's solicitor, each sheet . . .034 
 
 Attending deHvering same . . . . , . . ,068 
 
 (See further charges as at page 501.) 
 
 Ordinary Purchaser's Costs, on Agreement to purchase and Conveyance. 
 
 Attending you, when you informed me that you had agreed with Mr. 
 for the purchase of , and taking in- 
 
 structions to peruse and settle agreement on your behalf . . .068 
 Perusing agreement accordingly, eyery fifteen folios . . . .050 
 
 Fair copy thereof, per folio 4 
 
 Attending you, reading same over, and giving you full explanation as 
 to certain conditions imposed upon you ; you agreed thereto, subject 
 
 to my alterations made therein 6 8 
 
 Writing returning agreement, and of your determination, and clerk's 
 
 attendance 050 
 
 Having received duplicate copy agreement for your signature, examining 
 
 same, for every fifteen folios 3 4 
 
 Attending you on your signing same 6 8 
 
 Appointment to exchange and attending exchanging . . . .068 
 Writing vendor's solicitor that I should attend to examine abstract .036 
 Attending comparing abstract with deeds. Self and clerk, each hour . 10 
 Perusing abstract of title^ for every three sheets . . . .068 
 
 Drawing and fair ■ copy instructions for counsel to advise on abstract 
 
 (included in perusal) 
 
 Attending him therewith 068 
 
 Paid his fee, and clerk 
 
 Drawing recLuisitions upon title and fair copy, per sheet . . . 10 
 Writing to vendor's solicitor therewith, and clerk's attendance . .050 
 Perusing replies to requisitions, and making observations thereon, 
 
 according to length of requisitions. 
 Attending Mr. to advise on sufficiency thereof . .068 
 
 Paid his fee, and clerk 
 
 Instructions for conveyance , .068 
 
 Drawing same, per foEo 010 
 
 (-ZjT settled hy Counsel.^ 
 
 Attending Mr. therewith to settle 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee 
 
 Fair copy for perusal of vendor's solicitor, each folio . . . .004 
 Perusing and considering his alterations in draft, and attending him 
 
 thereon, same finally settled 6 8 
 
 Ingrossing conveyance, per folio 08 
 
moetgauoe's costs. 503 
 
 Paid stamps (araoimt paid), and parclimeiit (5s. per skin) . * «• c?» 
 
 Attending stainping _ _ ' C R 
 
 Attending vendor's solicitor therewith for examination .' .' ' 6 8 
 
 Attending him, informing him of my readiness to complete, and 
 
 making appointment to pay over pm-chase money . . . .068 
 
 Searching for judgments, each hour engaged , . ', ', ! 6 8 
 
 Paid search . . • 
 
 Searching incumbrances (if at Middlesex Registry), each hour engaged" 6 8 
 Paid search _ 
 
 Attending inspecting memorials (accordiag to time occupied, as above) 
 
 JraiCl ••••..,,. 
 
 Attending searching at Insolvency Court . . . . ," .0 6 8 
 
 Paid search 020 
 
 Attending completion .' 13 4 
 
 Letters, messengers, &c 050 
 
 Ordinary Mortgagor's Solicitor s Charges. 
 
 Attending you when you desired me to obtain for you the loan of 
 1000/. upon your property at , when you requested me 
 
 to insert advertisement for the loan, and taking down full particulars 
 
 for that purpose 068 
 
 Drawing advertisement accordingly and fair copy . . . .068 
 
 Copy for insertion in the Times 10 
 
 Attending with same, and bespeaking insertion 6 8 
 
 Paid 
 
 Writing Mr. in answer to his application as to advertise- 
 
 ment, and giving him full and general particiilars of the property 
 
 proposed to be mortgaged 6 
 
 The like to Mr. 5 
 
 Attending you, when you informed me Mr. had agreed to 
 
 advance you the required amount, and taking instructions to com- 
 municate with his solicitor, and you handed me the whole of the 
 
 deeds 068 
 
 Drawing abstract, and fair copy, per sheet 10 
 
 Attending delivering same to mortgagee's solicitor, and making 
 
 appointment to compare same with deeds 6 8 
 
 Attending examination of abstract (each hour engaged) . . .068 
 Perusing and considering requisitions upon title . . . .068 
 
 (If special, 13s. 4rf.) 
 
 Drawing replies thereto, and fair copy, one sheet . . . . 10 
 
 Writing therewith, and clerk's attendance 3 6 
 
 Fair copy draft mortgage to keep, forty folios 13 4 
 
 Perusing and making alterations in same, equal to three skins . . 15 
 Attending conferring as to my alterations, and finally settling draft .068 
 Writing mortgagee's solicitor that proposed appointment to complete 
 
 would suit .036 
 
 Examining ingrossment of mortgage (38. Ad. per skin of fifteen folios) 10 
 Attending completion of mortgage money paid over . . . . 13 4 
 Drawing schedule of deeds to be handed over, and signed by mort- 
 gagee, per folio . . . . . . . . . .010 
 
 Fair copy, per folio 004 
 
 Letters, &c 5 
 
504 COSTS OF LEASE. 
 
 Ordinary Mortgagee's Solicitor's Charges. 
 •J 4 .. ^ s, it 
 
 Attending you on your informing me of your consent to advance Mr. 
 the sum of , by way of mortgage on , 
 
 and that his solicitor would communicate with me on the subject, 
 
 and tailing your instructions thereon 6 8 
 
 Writing mortgagor's solicitor that I was ready to proceed with the 
 matter, and requesting to be furnished with abstract of title as early 
 as convenient . . . . . ■ . . . . .036 
 Having received abstract of title, writing making appointment to in- 
 spect deeds 036 
 
 Attending, pursuant to appointment, and comparing abstract with deeds 
 
 produced — self and clerk engaged two hours (10«. per hour) , .10 
 Perusing abstract, fifteen sheets (for every three sheets, 6s. 8tZ.) . . 1 13 4 
 Instructions for Mr. to advise on abstract, and attending him 6 8 
 
 Paid his fee and clerk . . .246 
 
 Drawing requisitions upon title, and fair copy (per sheet) . . , 10 
 Writing mortgagor's solicitor therewith, and clerk's attendance . .050 
 
 Perusing and considering replies to requisitions 6 8 
 
 Instructions for mortgage 068 
 
 Drawing same, forty folios (Is. per folio) 2 
 
 Fair copy for mortgagor's solicitor's approval (4(?. per foUo) . . 13 4 
 
 Attending him therewith 068 
 
 Perusing and considering his alterations in draft, and attending him 
 
 thereon, finally settling same 6 8 
 
 Insert here such other and general attendances as may Jiave become necessary by 
 the alterations in draft, or agreeing upon final terms upon mortgage money 
 
 Ingrossing mortgage, %d. per folio . . . , . . .16 8 
 
 Paid for stamps (as paid). 
 
 Parchment (5s. per skin) 
 
 Attending stamping 068 
 
 Writing mortgagor's solicitor with ingrossment for examination, and 
 clerk's attendance therewith 5 
 
 Searching for judgments, annuities, and crown debts (each hour en- 
 gaged) . 6 8 
 
 Paid search (as paid). 
 
 Searching bankruptcy and insolvency (same charge). 
 
 Paid 
 
 Attending execution of mortgage 13 4 
 
 Letters, &c. 5 
 
 Lease and Counterpart. 
 
 Instructions for lease 068 
 
 Drawing same, each folio 010 
 
 Fair copy, for perusal of lessee's solicitor, per folio ■ . , .004 
 
 Attending him therewith 068 
 
 Perusing and considering alterations in draft, and consenting thereto .068 
 Ingrossing lease and counterpart (each per folio) . . . ,008 
 
 Paid for stamp (as paid) and parchment (5s. each skin) 
 
 Attending to stamp 068 
 
 Attending execution of lease 13 4 
 
 Attending making appointment, and exchanging lease for counterpart .068 
 Letters, &c. 5 
 
GENERAL CHAEGES. 
 
 505 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 Of Memorial of Deed registered. 
 
 Dramng and fair copy memorial, per folio i 
 
 Ingrossing, per folio , ,008 
 
 Paid for stamp and parchment 6 
 
 Attending execution of memorial 6 8 
 
 Attending to register memorial, and afterwards for same . . .068 
 Paid 
 
 GENERAL CHARGES. 
 
 Instructions for bill 
 
 amended bUl* 
 
 supplemental bill 
 
 original summons at chambers 
 
 special casesf 
 
 answers 
 
 examinationsj 
 
 demurrers§ 
 
 pleas § 
 
 exceptionsll 
 
 biUs 
 
 amended or supplemental 
 
 interrogatories. 
 
 special petitionsH , 
 
 special affidayits 
 
 order to revive 
 
 brief on moving for injunctionf 
 
 to defend proceedings commenced by bill 
 
 special case** . 
 
 petitionft 
 
 on original summons 
 
 for order to add parties 
 
 for brief on said hearing 
 
 „ under order 6th March 
 Drawing special notice of motion 
 
 Or per folio 
 Drawing bills . 
 
 „ special cases XX 
 
 „ answers 
 
 „ pleas§§ 
 
 „ demurrers§ § 
 
 „ exceptionsll || 
 
 „ interrogatories 
 
 „ petitions^H 
 
 „ affidavits, per folio 
 
 „ statements for chief clerk and fair copy 
 
 ,, 1860 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 rf. 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 .0 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 -0 6 8 13 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 110 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 >0 1 10 
 
 8 14 
 
 » Ante, p. 24. 
 
 5 Ante, p. 18. 
 »» Ante, p. 233. 
 §5 Ante, p. 18. 
 
 t Ante, p. 232. 
 
 II Arte, p. 27. 
 +t Ante, p. yi , and .^qr/. 
 \\ I Ante, p. 27. 
 
 t Ante, p. 29. 
 ^ A/tie, p. 31, and sqq, 
 XX An 2, p. V.i. 
 ITir Ante, p. 31, andsj?. 
 
506 
 
 GENERAL CHARGES. 
 
 {Drmoing.) 
 
 Drawing advertisements^ including attendance for 
 
 tuie 
 
 „ observations, for counsel, per sheet* . 
 „ list of . evidence, if required by registrar' 
 „ brief on furtber consideration, per sheet 
 
 (Appearance or Defence.) 
 
 Attending ^ving undertaking to appear ... 
 
 „ to enter appearance ...,., 
 If exceeding three defendants, for every addi- 
 tional number not exceeding three . . .068 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1867. Feb. 1, 1857. ' 
 
 & s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 13 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 
 4 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 {Perusing.') 
 
 Print of bill by defendant's solicitor . 
 
 If above sixty folios, per folio 
 
 Amended bill ...... 
 
 Exceeding forty folios, per folio 
 Amended bill in writing .... 
 
 Exceeding twenty folios, per folio 
 Answer ....... 
 
 Exceeding forty folios, per folio 
 Examinations or special alRdavits, per folio 
 Supplemental statement . . 
 Order to revive ..... 
 
 Claims brought in by creditors under administration estate, 
 
 not exceeding iive, and attending adjudication 
 And for every additional number not exceeding five 
 
 110 
 
 13 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 10 6 
 
 10 6 
 
 110 
 4 
 13 4 
 4 
 6 8 
 
 13 
 
 
 13 
 
 13 4 
 
 110 
 110 
 
 (Attendances.') 
 
 Attending printer with bill, answer or affidavits 
 „ to get copies marked for service 
 „ to get answer or affidavit sworn 
 „ to settle and read over ingrossment of answer 
 or examination ...... 
 
 If twenty folios, and under fifty 
 And for each additional thirty folios 
 „ to insert advertisement in Gazette 
 „ to procure certificate of pleadings . . 
 „ to obtain consent of next friefnd to sue ' . 
 „ to give consent to take answer without oath 
 „ to procure such consent ..... 
 
 „ counsel for certificate to mark cause as short 
 cause, and registrar therewith 
 
 „ counsel with brief, &c 
 
 Where fee five guineas 
 
 ditto twenty guineas .... 
 
 ditto forty guineas ..... 
 
 „ each counsel on appointing consultation . 
 
 Attending counsel and court on motion of course and for 
 
 order 
 
 * Ante, p. 354. 
 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 
 6 
 13 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 6 
 6 
 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 
 13 4 
 110 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 4 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 4 
 110 
 
 2 2 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 4 
 
GENERAL CHARGES. 
 
 507 
 
 Attending consultation or conference with counsel * 
 
 „ on signino- report 
 
 „ filing certificates or reports, and for office copies 
 „ for reference to taxing master or conveyancing 
 
 counsel 
 
 „ to set down cause ...... 
 
 „ to leave papers with Judge .... 
 
 „ to present special petition, and for fiat 
 
 „ summons 
 
 „ Or, according to circumstances, per day , 
 
 At Chambers. 
 
 Preparing original summons 
 
 „ every other summons ..... 
 
 If special 
 
 Copy summons to leave or serve 
 
 Attending to get original summons and duplicate examined 
 and sealed ....... 
 
 „ at Eecord and Writ Office, filing duplicate, and 
 
 to get copies sealed 
 
 „ summons 6s. %d., 13s. 4c(., or £1 Is., according 
 to circumstances. 
 For every order drawn up, and entering same . 
 Preparing advertisement and attending to get same ap- 
 proved and signed 
 
 Examination of Witnesses. 
 
 Attending examiner for appointment .... 
 „ examination ....... 
 
 Or according to circumstances (each day) 
 „ if conducted by the solicitor the fee may be 
 
 increased to 2 2 
 
 Hearing of Causes, Sfo. 
 
 „ Court, cause or petition in paper 
 „ when heard . . . • . 
 
 Or according to circumstances, per day 
 „ on special motion day 
 
 „ motion heard 
 
 Or according to circumstances 
 „ on motion for injunction, or to discharge same 
 
 Or according to circumstances (not to exceed) 
 „ with brief and papers, bespeaking minutes 
 
 „ to settle minutes 
 
 Or at taxing master's discretion, not to 
 
 exceed 
 
 Attending to pass decree or order 
 
 For enroUing a decree or orderf 
 
 Or per folio 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 13 4 
 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 13 4 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 2 2 
 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 6 
 3 
 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 8 
 
 
 13 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1 
 6 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 1 1 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 4 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 
 3 3 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 * Where no fee is pidd to counsel on a conference no charge will be allowed to the solicitor, see ante, 
 p. 354. 
 
 t The costs of enrolling a decree are not allowed on a taxation as between party and party, ante, 
 p. 357. 
 
508 
 
 GENERAL CHAEGES. 
 
 Notices. 
 
 Notices of appearance 
 filing answer 
 demurrer 
 plea 
 
 amendment 
 replication 
 evidence to be read 
 filing afiidavits 
 appointment to settle minutes 
 passing decrees or orders 
 
 Lower Scale. Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb. 1, 1857. Peb. 1, 1857. 
 
 & s. d. & s. d. 
 
 2 6 2 6 
 
 Copies and Services. 
 
 Notices of motion (including copy) . . ■ , 
 
 Of warrant, each solicitor • . . ' . 
 
 Judge's summons , . ■ , 
 
 Service of petition, (each solicitor) . 
 
 Ditto, order (exclusive of copy, id. per folio) . 
 
 Other necessary or proper notices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Accountant- Oeneral. 
 
 Drawing request to lay out cash 
 
 Attending accountant-general therewith 
 Drawing request to carry over ..... 
 
 Attending accountant-general therewith .... 
 Attending registrar for directions to sell or transfer stock 
 Attending accountant-general therewith 
 
 „ to identify party receiving cheque . 
 
 „ to bespeak, and for directions to pay in after- 
 wards to Bank of England, and on account- 
 ant-general filing receipt, and for office copy 
 
 „ where sum paid 100/. . 
 
 „ „ 1000/. 
 
 „ „ 5000/. 
 
 „ to procure certificate of fund in court 
 
 „ to procure transcripts of accounts . 
 
 .0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 
 
 1 1 
 
 6 
 
 2 6 
 
 6 8 
 
 2 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 6 8 
 
 13 4 
 110 
 
 2 2 
 
 3 3 
 6 8 
 6 8 
 
 Subpoena 068 06 
 
 Other writs 068 06 
 
 For every additional number of names not exceeding 
 
 three . . . . • 068 06 
 
 Eve-y vsi-it under order except special injunction . . 13 4 13 
 
 Special injunction 10 10 
 
 Or per folio 014 01 
 
 Attending for reference to taxing .master* . . .068 068 
 Drawing and fair copy for master's office, per folio* . .008 008 
 Attending taxing costs, for eveiy twenty-five folios, or 
 fractional part .. 00806 8 
 
 » See ante, pp. 340, 341, 403. 
 
COSTS OF TAXING SOLICITOE'S BILL. 509 
 
 Lower Scale. 
 Conveyancing. Feb. i, 1867. 
 
 £ 5. l2. 
 
 For perusing abstracts, every tliree sheets . . .068 
 
 „ the draft of every deed, each skin of fifteen 
 
 folios 6 
 
 For examining ingrossment of any deed . . . .034 
 
 (This fee not allowed to the party drawing the deed) 
 For making attested copies, examining and attesting 
 
 same, per folio 6 
 
 Instructions for deeds 6 8 
 
 Drawing, each folio 10 
 
 Fair copies of same, per folio 4 
 
 Ingrossing, per folio 8 
 
 Attending examining deeds, solicitor and clerk (each hour 
 
 engaged) 10 
 
 Attending examination of deeds, party producing same 
 
 (each hour engaged) 6 8 
 
 Drawing abstract, each sheet 6 8 
 
 Fair copy, each sheet 3 4 
 
 Searches, per hour 6 8 
 
 Attending execution of deed (each party) . , .068 
 
 Higher Scale. 
 
 Feb.: 
 
 1, 1867. 
 
 & 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 PETITIONERS' OR APPLICANTS' COSTS OF TAXING SOLICITOE'S 
 
 BILL. 
 In the matter of A. B., ^-c. 
 
 One-Sixth having been taken off.* 
 
 Instructions for petitionf 13 4 
 
 Drawing petition 040 
 
 Attending 13 4 
 
 Order 050 
 
 Copy order for service 030 
 
 Service 028 
 
 Term FeeJ 15 
 
 Attending for reference 068 
 
 Copy order . . . . . . . . . . .030 
 
 Making copy of the bills, folios eighty 16 
 
 Attending taxing same, per hour 6 8 
 
 Drawing bill of costs, folios five .034 
 
 Warrant on leaving, copy and service 5 6 
 
 The like to tax, copy and service 5 6 
 
 Attending taxing§ 068 
 
 Transcribing, certifying, and stamp 12 
 
 Attending to file 068 
 
 Office copy 020 
 
 Term fee f 15 
 
 (The Lower Scale does not apply.) 
 
 * See ante. Chap. Vn. s. viii. , . , , . „„, 
 
 t Special applications lor taxation must now be made m chambers, see ante, p. 321. 
 t Ante, pp. 357, 410. § Ante, pp. 340, 1. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 ABANDONED 
 
 Motions. — See Motions. 
 Petitions. — See Petitions. 
 Summons. — See Chambers. 
 
 ABATEMENT OF SUIT, 
 
 Death of sole plaintiff, l)y, order made on, 56. 
 Husband, by death of, in joint suit, consequences of, 261. 
 Marriage of sole female plaintiff, by, order made on, 56, 256. 
 And see Retitob. 
 
 ABSTRACT, 
 
 Costs of comparing with deeds, 272. 
 ABSTRACT OF DEED, 
 
 To accompany case, costs of, disallowed, 354. 
 ACCOUNT, 
 
 Client may file a bill for, against solicitor, 330 ; but not solicitor against 
 
 client, 388. 
 Costs of suits for an, 107 to 109, 360 ; order for payment of, may be made 
 
 at the hearing, 109. 
 Wrong, trustees may be allowed costs, though money paid into an, 215. 
 ACCOUNTANT, 
 
 Costs of employing, payable by personal representative, where, 298. 
 Employed to assist the court, fees to, 351. 
 Scale of charges for payment of, 356. 
 
 ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, 
 
 Brokerage payable to, on investment of purchase money, paid by Railway 
 
 Company, 194. 
 Cheque of the, not delivered out, cannot be taken in execution, but stop 
 order may be obtained on it, 380, 381. 
 
 ACCOUNTING PARTY, 
 
 Mortgagee may be charged with costs as an, 109. 
 
 ACCOUNTS, 
 
 Executor, neglect by, to furnish, not equivalent to refusal, 108, 109 ; bound 
 
 to render, to solicitor of legatees, 109. 
 Not keeping, defendant charged with costs, 108. 
 Refusing to render, defendant charged with costs up to the hearing, but 
 
 may have subsequent costs, 107, 108. 
 
 ACT OF PARLIAMENT, 
 
 Appeal will lie as to costs payable according to an, 106, 
 
5i2 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 ACT OF PARLIAMENT, 
 
 Costs of application for leave to obtain an, and obtaining, see Charity 
 
 Strrrs. 
 And see Private Act. 
 
 ACTION AT LAW, . 
 
 Brougbt under decree, in what court defendant in an, should apply tor 
 
 security for costs, 5. 
 Compromise of, may be enforced by dismissal of bill without costs, 50. 
 Costs of, comprised in plaintiff's costs of suit to set aside securities for 
 
 fraud, though not prayed, 74. . , . 
 
 Costs of, distinguished from costs in equity, and almost invariably follow 
 
 the result, 69, 74 ; no set-off of, against costs in equity, 93. 
 Dismissal of bill, without prejudice to an, 71. 
 
 Executors defending, where allowed costs of, 122, and see Addenda. 
 Mortgagee, against, where costs of, allowed, and as against whom, 169, 
 
 170; by, where allowed to, ibid. 
 Solicitor, by, for bill of costs, 304, 388 ; not to be brought before delivery, 
 
 304 ; non-delivery should be pleaded to, 307 ; costs of, S60 ; restrained 
 
 after taxation, though certificate not filed, 345, 388. 
 Stayed by interlocutory order, directions in decree for recovery of costs of, 
 
 376. 
 Suit to restrain an, plaintiff in, exempted from giving security for costs, 12. 
 
 ACT D ARIES 
 
 Employed to assist the court, fees to, 351. 
 
 ADDRESS, 
 
 Change of, should be stated on amended or supplemental bill, 7. 
 
 Misdescription of plaintiff's, where security for costs required in case of, 
 5 to 7 ; may be the subject of a plea, 7. 
 ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS, 
 
 Priority in, of solicitor's lien on funds recovered, 397. 
 
 ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS, SUITS FOR 
 
 Apportionment of costs of, between different parts of residue, 110, 111; 
 where suit comprises other purposes, or two estates are administered in 
 one suit, 1 16 ; where a mixed fund of realty and personalty is created, 
 1 1 6, 1 1 7 ; between legal and equitable assets, 118; between appointed 
 and unappointed parts of a fund, 118; between devised and descended 
 real estate. — See Addenda. 
 
 Assignor and assignee, entitled only to one set of costs in, 125, 126. 
 
 Consolidated, several, plaintiff having conduct of, allowed his extra costs, 
 118. 
 
 Costs of proceedings in, occasioned by lands being taken compulsorily, to 
 be borne by the company, 196, seq. 
 
 Insufficiency of estate, in case of, costs of, how borne, 134, seq.; to whom 
 costs as between solicitor and client allowed, 135, 136. 
 
 Mortgagee, instituted by, costs of, payable in priority to principal and in- 
 terest, 132 ; secus where mortagee is also creditor on simple contract, 
 133 ; or administration is prayed only in event of security proving insuf- 
 ficient, 133, 134; and see Mortgagee. 
 
 Particular fund, what words sufficient to charge a, with costs of, 115. 
 
 Plaintiff may have costs of, though he fails in some particular claim, 115. 
 
 Principles as to costs of, where applicable to special case, 223, 224. 
 
 Priority of costs of, over costs of suits in Ecclesiastical Court, 119 ; but 
 not over charges of officer of the court, ibid. ; over debts, where, 135. 
 
 Real and personal estate administered in same suit, rules as to costs, 116-118. 
 
 Receiver appointed by will, a proper party to, 277. 
 
 Jlesidue, costs payable out of, where, 110, 
 
INDEX or MATTER. 513 
 
 ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS, SUITS FOR— continued. 
 
 Sale of mortgaged property in, costs of, m hetlier payable in priority to 
 
 mortgagee's principal and interest, 134, 158, 160, and see Addenda. 
 Set-oflf of costs awarded in, to parties ■who are debtors to estate, 127. 
 ' Testamentary expenses,' costs of, not included in, 115. 
 Where personal estate is exhausted in payment of debts, costs of, how to 
 
 be borne, 117 ; where there is no personal estate, see Addenda to p. 118. 
 Where proceedings are not for the benefit of the estate, costs how to be 
 
 borne, 114; where some of residuary legatees or next of kin have been 
 
 settled with before suit, ibid. ; or object to the suit as unnecessary, ibid. 
 Where two are instituted, one may be stayed, in what cases, and upon 
 
 what terms, 129-132 ; if decree made in second, costs of it payable out 
 
 of assets in first, 132 ; if no decree made in second suit, costs allowed 
 
 up to notice of decree in first suit only, ibid. 
 And see Chambers, Class, Creditors' Suit, Executors, Legatees' 
 
 Suit, Residuary Legatees. 
 
 ADMINISTRATION, LETTERS OF 
 
 Co-plaintiflf deceased, to, duty of survivors to take out, 56. 
 Formal party in administration suit, costs of taking out, to a, 126. 
 Mortgagee allowed costs of taking out, to incumbrancer under mortgagor, 
 
 and to mortgagor, 168, 169. 
 Revoked, administrator under, allowed costs, 123. 
 
 ADMINISTRATOR AD LITEM, costs of, 291. 
 
 ADMINISTRATORS.— See Executors, Trustees. 
 
 ADMISSIONS, parties refusing to make, to pay costs of proving docu- 
 ments, 79. 
 
 ADVANCE on accotint of costs, where made to plaintiff, 87. 
 ADVANCEMENT of cause,~costs of motion for, 34. 
 
 ADVERSE CLAIMANTS, costs occasioned by litigation between, what 
 are, 191, n. 
 
 AFFIDAVITS, 
 
 Costs, on question of, what, may be used, 85. 
 Counsel, settled by, where costs of, allowed, 355. 
 Filed, but not entered as read, costs of, disallowed on taxation, 350. 
 Prolixity of, taxing master directed to regard, 348, 349. 
 Trustees not allowed costs of copies of, on applications under Trustee 
 Relief Act, 215. 
 
 AGENCY BUSINESS within the Attornies and Solicitors Act, 305. 
 AGENT.— See Town Agent. 
 
 AGREEMENTS between solicitor and client as to costs, effect of, on right to 
 taxation, 313; validity of, 314, 390. 
 
 ALIQUOT SHARE, persons entitled to, of purchase monies may obtain 
 payment without service on other parties, 201. 
 
 ALLOCATUR.— See Taxing Master. 
 
 ALTERNATIVE RELIEF, biU praying, dismissed with costs as to defen- 
 dants, not necessary parties in view adopted by court, 84. 
 
 AMBASSADOR.— See Security for Costs. 
 
 AMENDED BILL, 
 
 Address, change of, should be stated on, 7. 
 
 Allegations struck out of, where defendant allowed costs occasioned by, 
 
 25, 26, 79 ; should apply for them at once, semble, but may be allowed 
 
 them at the hearing, ibid. 
 
 L L 
 
514 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 AMENDED BILL — continued. 
 
 Answer to, plaintiff vexatiously requiring an, to pay costs, -where, 79. 
 Different case made by, defendant entitled to costs of suit up to time of 
 
 amendment, 26. 
 Security for costs, -whether defendant to, who has waived his right on 
 
 original bill, may obtain, 13, 14. 
 
 AMENDMENT OF BILL, 
 
 Costs of, where fixed costs, and where payable by plaintiff, 24; how re- 
 covered, 376. 
 
 Defendant, made so by, not entitled to costs of amendment, 24. 
 
 Defendant's extra costs of, costs in the cause, 25. 
 
 Irregularity in order for, how waived, 27. 
 
 Orderfor, not obtained ex parte, after service of notice of motion to dismiss 
 for want of prosecution, 36, n. 
 
 Replication, after, where allowed, and on what terms as to costs, 25. 
 
 Special application for, costs of, disposed of in the order, 25. 
 
 Without costs, where order for, is made, 24. 
 
 ANSWER, 
 
 Amended bill, to, plaintiff vexatiou.sly requiring, to pay costs, where, 
 
 79. 
 Contempt, defendant in, for want of, how discharged, 371 ; process of, for 
 
 want of, not waived by accepting costs, ibid. 
 Costs, on question of, may be read, 85 ; but not as between co-defendants, 
 
 ibid. 
 Counsel, costs of two, to settle, disallowed, 352. 
 Disclaiming trustee should not put in a full, 292. 
 Evasive, taken off the file with costs, 28. 
 Exceptions to, costs of. — See Exceptions. 
 
 Objections to frame of suit should be taken by, 63, 78, 79, 84, 124. 
 Taken off the file, may be, if costs of contempt not paid, where, 371. 
 Written, brief of, costs of, not allowed, 349. 
 
 APPEAL, a party may, in formd pauperis, 264. 
 
 APPEAL MOTION, 
 
 On new grounds, and evidence, 104. 
 
 Where moving party does not appear, costs of, 103. 
 
 APPEAL, PETITION OF, 
 
 Deposit to be made on presenting, 96, 97. 
 
 House of Lords, to, recognisances to be entered into on presenting, 98. 
 
 Interlocutory order, from, no deposit required, 97. 
 
 Parties unnecessarily served with, appellant pays costs of, 104. 
 
 Pauper may present, without deposit, on special certificate, 97. 
 
 Undertaking as to costs, to be given on presenting, 98. 
 
 APPEALS, 
 
 Costs of, how to be borne, 96 to 104; not included in costs of suit as 
 between solicitor and client, 104, 294. 
 
 Costs, as to, aloue, not in general allowed, 105 ; exceptions to rule, 106 ; 
 no exception because costs are specifically prayed, ibid. 
 
 Costs and other matters, as to, decree may be'varied on, as to costs, though 
 otherwise aiErraed, 106 ; secus, if the other grounds are merely colour- 
 able, ibid. 
 
 Costs, variation of decree as to, alone, will not protect appellant from costs 
 of, 106. 
 
 Default at hearing of, where appellant or respondent makes, 102, 103. 
 
 Deposit, return of the, is a disposal of the costs of, 101. 
 
 Evidence, new, effect of introduction of, on costs of, 104. 
 
 Gross sum named as costs of, occasionally, 101. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 515 
 
 APPEALS— continued. 
 
 Respondent never pays costs of, in House of Lords, 100 ; secus, in Court of 
 
 Appeal in Chancery, and Privy Council, 101. 
 And see House or Lords. 
 
 APPEARANCE, costs of, entered by plaintiff for defendant, how to be 
 borne, see Addenda to p. 85. 
 
 APPOINTED AND UNAPPOINTED PARTS OF FUND, costs of suit 
 for administration paid rateably out of, 1 18. 
 
 APPOINTMENT, trustees refusing to transfer funds under an, when allowed 
 costs, 301. 
 
 APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS, 
 
 Administration suits, in. — See Administration of Assets, Suits for. 
 
 Courts not inclined to make nice distinctions as to, 91. 
 
 Defendants, between, 86. 
 
 General charges, what directions for, will give proportion of, and contra, 
 
 91, 92. 
 Subject-matter of the suit, with reference to, 90. 
 Tenant for life and remaindermen between, 174, 220. 
 Time, as to, 65, 66. 
 
 ARBITRATION, where costs have been referred to, an order of course for 
 taxation irregular, 313. 
 
 ARGUMENT, shorthand writer's notes of the, never allowed, 356. 
 
 ARRANGEilENT, company not bound to pay costs of petition for payment 
 of purchase monies into court, under an, 201, 202. 
 
 ASSETS, ADMISSION OF.— See Legatee's Suit. 
 
 ASSETS, ADMINISTRATION OF. — See Adjiinistration of Assets, 
 Suits for. 
 
 ASSIGNEES, COSTS OF, 
 
 As between assignor and assignee, 125, 126, 232. 
 As between themselves and strangers, 231. 
 
 Mortgagee, of, in suits to set aside securities, 164 ; in foreclosure or re- 
 demption suits, where assignment before suit, 166 ; where assignment 
 pendente lite, 167. 
 Reversions, in suits to set aside sales, &o. of, 177. 
 
 ASSIGNEES IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY, 
 Adopting suit liable to costs from commencement, 86, 233. 
 Client, of, solicitor's lien valid against, 393. 
 Costs of, general rules as to, 232, 233. 
 Defendant, of, cannot dismiss bill in default of plaintiff filing supplemental 
 
 bill, 58, 240. 
 Disclaiming, no favour shown to, in respect of costs, 83. 
 Executor, of, costs of, in administration suit, 126, 240. 
 Mortgagor, of, where equitable mortgagee entitled to costs against, 157. 
 Official, and creditors ', no distinction made between, as to costs, 233. 
 ' Parties chargeable ' under Attomies and Solicitors Act, may be, 312. 
 Security for costs, may obtain, though bankrupt has already done so, 16. 
 Solicitor, of, are assignees within the meaning of the Attornies and 
 
 Solicitors Act, s. 37, 308, n. ; liability of, for costs of taxation, 361. 
 Suit by, to set aside fraudulent settlement, costs of, 255. 
 
 ATTACHMENT, 
 
 Dispensed with, may be, where party is abroad, 366, n. 
 Error in subpoena, invalidated by, 363. 
 
 Execution of writ of, does not deprive the party of lien or right of set-off', 
 362, 398. 
 
 1 L 2 
 
516 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 ATTACHMENT— con tmaet?. 
 
 Irregularities in, may be waived, to what extent, 375. 
 
 Not bailable, 365. 
 
 Peer, or member of parliament, writ of, cannot be issued against a, 367. 
 
 Prisoner once discharged cannot be retaken under an, 375 ; secus, where 
 
 the first taking was irregular, ibid. 
 Proceedings on return of writ of, where party is taken, 365 ; where sheriff 
 
 returns non est inventus, 366. 
 Revived, may be, where, 367. 
 
 Solicitor's lieu not discharged by taking client under an, 398. 
 Two writs of, may be issued, where, 365. 
 Valid though prisoner be not brought up, 365, n. 
 Writ of, how issued, 365 ; may be altered if unexecuted, ibid. 
 
 ATTORNEY.— See Soucitoe. 
 
 ATTORNEY-GENERAL, 
 
 Appearance of, on petition, where costs of, allowed against railway 
 company, 202. 
 
 Appearing in a suit, without being made a party, to argue a point on 
 behalf of the Crown, not allowed costs if unsuccessful, 236. 
 
 Brief to, on hearing of charity information, allowed, on taxation between 
 party and party, 138, 353. 
 
 Charity suits, in, suing ex officio, receives but does not pay costs, 138, 144, 
 235 ; where there is a relator, disallowed costs of attending proceedings 
 under decree by separate solicitor, 138 ; allowed costs out of funds 
 where defendant ordered to pay is insolvent, 139. 
 
 Crown, in suits to recover property on behalif of the, may now recover 
 costs, 233, 234 ; or costs may be recovered against, 234 ; rule before 
 18 & 19 Vict. c. 90, 234 ; the Act not retrospective, 235. 
 
 Defendant, as, where entitled to costs out of funds, or estate, 235, 236. 
 
 Felon, claiming the share of a, in an administration suit, costs, 126, 236. 
 
 House of Lords, appealing to the, not required to enter into recogni- 
 sance, 97. 
 
 Petition of right, on a, may recover costs from suppliant, and vice versa, 237. 
 
 Proceedings before the, the Court cannot award costs of, adversely, 146. 
 
 ATTORNEY, POWER OF, 
 
 Bearer of subpoena may receive costs without a, 364. 
 
 Executor refusing to pay on a, allowed costs of payment into court under 
 
 Trustee Relief Act, 214. 
 Legatee omitting to offer a, may lose costs of suit, 112. 
 
 ATTORNIES and SOLICITORS ACT, 184 3(6 & 7 Vict. 73), 
 S. 31 (Attorney in custody cannot practise), 395. 
 S. 37 (Delivery and taxation, and costs of taxation), 304 to 308,310 to 321, 
 
 341, 358. 
 Ss. 38, 39, 40 (Third party clauses), 331 to 337. 
 S. 41 (Taxation after payment), 321 to 331. 
 To be construed liberally for the client, 306. 
 
 ATTORNIES and SOLICITORS ACT, 1861 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 127), 
 S. 27 (Interest on costs), 382. 
 S. 28 (Solicitor's charge on property recovered), 249, 399, 400. 
 
 AUCTIONEER, 
 
 Deposit, may retain costs, &c. out of, 188. 
 Trustee, not allowed to charge commission, 295. 
 
 BANK OF ENGLAND, costs of the, 237, 238. 
 
 BANKERS, trustees, not allowed compound interest on advances, 295. 
 
INDEX or MATTER. 517 
 
 BANKRUPT, 
 
 Certificated, made defendant, -where entitled to costs from plaintiff, 83, 239. 
 
 Co-plaintiff becoming, order made on, 57. 
 
 Debtor to the estate, may have costs, 239; secus, as to his assignees, 232. 
 
 Defendant becoming, may dismiss bill with costs for want of prosecu- 
 tion, 54. 
 
 Demur, may, both as to relief and discovery, 239. 
 
 Executor, where costs of, may be set off against debt due to estate, 128 ; 
 costs of assignees of, in administration suit, 126, 240. 
 
 Husband, in suit between wife and assignees, costs of, 239. 
 
 Plaintiff, sole, becoming, order made on, 57 ; does not pay costs, though 
 bUl dismissed on merits, except in case of fraud, 239, 240. 
 
 Trustee, allowed costs as between solicitor and client, 220, 240. 
 
 BANKRUPTCY LAWS, discharge of prisoner in contempt for non-payment 
 of costs under the, 369, 370. 
 
 BEDFORD CHARITY ACT, power of Court to award costs under the, 145. 
 
 BIDDINGS, 
 
 Applicant to open, where allowed costs, 275. 
 Purchaser, costs of, where opened, 274, 275. 
 Where opened a second time, costs, 275. 
 
 BILL, 
 
 Amendment of, see Amendment. 
 
 Dismissal of, after decree, 57, «. 
 
 Dismissal of, before the hearing, see Dismissal before the Hearing. 
 
 Dismissal of, without prejudice to an actlon-at-law, 71. 
 
 Dismissed for want of prosecution maybe restored, but not for purpose of 
 
 discussing costs, 55. 
 FUed without authority, dismissed or taken off the file with costs against 
 
 solicitor, on plaintiff's application, 60, 61 ; or defendant's, 62. 
 Instructions for, 354, 426. 
 Written, where costs of, allowed, 349. 
 And see Printed Bill. 
 
 BILL OF EXCHANGE, lost, costs of suit in respect of, 76. 
 
 BILLS OF COSTS, 
 
 Alterations in, not permitted after reference, except in special cases, 341, 
 
 342 ; costs of application to make, how to be borne, ibid. 
 Contents of, need not be proved in action by solicitor, 307. 
 Copies of, how to be made, 340. 
 Delivered, cannot be altered in taxation between solicitor and client, 307 ; 
 
 secus, between party and party, 308 ; and see 341, 342. 
 Delivery of, 304 to 308 ; what acts solicitor may do before, 306, 307 ; 
 
 how enforced, 307 ; court may order, though twelve months have 
 
 elapsed since payment, 330 ; to third party, 335. 
 Disbursements, what, should be entered in, 304, n. 342. 
 Form of, 308 to 310. 
 Forms and precedents of. Appendix III. 
 Gross sum charged in, solicitor may supply a detailed explanation of, on 
 
 taxation, 342. 
 Interest on, 389, 390. 
 Items, added by taxing-master, to be considered with reference to costs 
 
 of taxation, 360 ; but new, cannot be introduced by solicitor with a view 
 
 to costs, ibid. 
 Liability for, co-petitioner cannot dispute his, white order for taxation 
 
 stands, 389. 
 Non-delivery of, must be pleaded, 307. 
 
518 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 BILLS OF COSTS—continued. 
 
 Paid, may be opened on bill filed, 330. 
 
 Payment of, how enforced, 388 to 400. 
 
 Payment of, what amounts to, with reference to right to taxation, 322 
 
 Payment and delivery of, where some time elapses between, effect on 
 
 right to taxation, 324 to 326. 
 Recovery of amount due on, by solicitor from client, 388, seq. 
 Retained by solicitor, presumed to be taxable, 305, n. 
 Security for, effect of giving, on right to taxation, 322. 
 Separate estate of married woman, liability of, for, 2,')9. 
 Unprofessional items should not be included in, but in a separate cash 
 
 account, 317, 342. 
 And see Solicitor, Solicitor's Lien, Taxation. 
 
 BOUNDARIES, costs of suit to settle, 174, 175. 
 
 BREACH OF TRUST, 
 
 Cestuis-que-trust entitled to costs of inquiries respecting a, though bene- 
 ficial 143, 144. 
 
 Costs of suits to repair a, 143, 295 to 298. 
 
 Executors where disallowed, or charged with costs occasioned by a, 121, 
 297. 
 
 And see Execdtors, Trustees. 
 
 BRIEF. 
 
 Attorney-General, to, on hearing of a charity information, allowed on 
 
 taxation, 138, 353. 
 Day for the hearing, to fix a, where counsel's fees on, allowed on taxation, 
 
 353. 
 Pleadings, of, where costs of, allowed on compromise of the suit, 354. 
 Written, of the answer, to be disallowed, 349. 
 
 CA, SA., solicitor's lien not discharged by taking client in execution under 
 
 a writ of, 398. 
 CASH ACCOUNTS between solicitor and client, as to, 317, 342. 
 
 CAUSE, 
 
 Standing over for defect of parties, costs, 63. 
 Struclc out of the paper, costs, 63. 
 
 CERTIFICATE.^See Taxing Master's Certificate. 
 
 CESTUIS-QUE TRUSTS, entitled to costs of inquiry respecting a breach of 
 
 trust, though beneficial, 143, 144. 
 Security for costs required from, on obtaining leave to bring an action in 
 
 name of their trustee, 11. 
 And see Trustee and Cestuis-que-Trust. 
 
 CHAMBERS, 
 
 Affidavits filed in, cannot be used on further consideration as to 
 
 costs, 85. 
 Bills of costs, application for delivery of, by solicitor to be made in, 307 ; 
 
 or special applications for taxation of, 321, 323. 
 Costs of proceedings in, generally, 95, 96. 
 Counsel, costs of employment of, in, where allowed, 95, 355. 
 Creditors, costs of persons claiming as, in, 128, 129. 
 Parties attending in, without leave, not allowed costs,95, 127. 
 Parties in same interest, having leave to attend proceedings in, when 
 
 allowed separate costs, 89, 127. 
 Review of taxation, applications for, to bemade in, 346. 
 Security for costs, applications for, to be made in, 16, 
 Solicitor, costs occasioned by non-attendance of, in, how to bo borne, 96. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 519 
 
 CBAMBEVIS— continued. 
 
 Summons in, abandoned, costs of, 96 ; adjourned from, into court, costs 
 
 of, 95. 
 Unnecessarj- matter, disallowance of costs of, in proceedings in, Addenda 
 
 to p. 96. 
 And see Class, Next of Kin. 
 
 CHARGE of solicitor for costs on property recovered in suit, under 23 &' 24 
 Vict. c. 127, 249, 399, 400. 
 
 CHARGING ORDER for costs, may be obtained on stock, &c., in -whicli the 
 debtor has an interest, 380, 381. 
 
 CHARITABLE USES, Commissioners of, under 43 EUz. c. 4, costs of, 145. 
 
 CHARITY, 
 
 Apportionment of costs when gift of residue to a, partially fails, 110, 111. 
 Where pure personalty is bequeathed to a, out of what fund costs of suit 
 come, 111. 
 
 CHARITY SUITS, 
 
 Act of parliament, costs of application for, where allowed in, 141. 
 
 Attorney-General, costs of, in, see Attorney-General. 
 
 Breach of trust, beneficial to charity, costs of suit in case of, 143, 144. 
 
 Charity estates, costs of, may be raised by sale or mortgage of, but Court 
 unwilling to direct a sale except in special cases, 144, 145. 
 
 Co-defendants, decree made for payment of costs between, where Attorney- 
 General sues without a relator, 87, 138. 
 
 Court, costs of proceedings taken without the sanction of the, 138, 141. 
 
 Estate, Attorney-General and trustees allowed costs out of the, where 
 defendant ordered to pay costs proves insolvent, 139. 
 
 Exceptions, trustees not allowed costs of, in, where Attorney-General has 
 filed similar ones, 144. 
 
 Funds recovered, costs of, should be charged upon the, in the first instance, 
 but may be paid out of the charity funds generally, 145. 
 
 Heir at law, costs of, in, 247. 
 
 Leases of charity lands, to set aside, costs of, 145, 146. 
 
 Next of kin, costs of, in, 247. 
 
 Public and private charities, no distinction now made between, as to dis- 
 missal of information in, 138, 139. 
 
 Public notice, persons appearing in pursuance of a, on an application for 
 appointment of new trustees not allowed costs, 142. 
 
 Relator, costs of, in, see Relator. 
 
 Romilly's (Sir S.) Act, where relief might have been had under, no costs 
 allowed 139. 
 
 Several charities, relating to, costs of, how to be borne, 145. 
 
 Solicitor and client, costs as between, frequently allowed in, but no rule to 
 that effect, 139, 140, 247. 
 
 Trustees, costs of, in, see Corporation, Trustees. 
 
 Trustees ordered to pay costs of, personally, paying them out of charity 
 funds, ordered to refund with interest, 142. 
 
 CLASS, 
 
 Legacy given to a, costs of raising, and of ascertaining the persons entitled, 
 
 how to be borne, 124. 
 Residuary legatees, of, costs of ascertaining members of a, how to be 
 
 borne, 124. 
 And see Next of Kin. 
 
 CLERGYMAN, payment of costs by a, how enforced, 379, 380. 
 
 CLERK, counsel's, fees payable to, 356. 
 
 CLOSE COPIES not allowed as of course, 406. 
 
520 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 CO-DEFENDANTS, 
 
 Contribution amongst, for payment of costs, 86. 
 
 Motion for injunction against, before decree, irregular, 39. 
 
 Payment of costs between, where directed, 87. 
 
 COMMISSION on funds recovered, beyond taxed costs, disallowed to solicitor, 
 314. 
 
 COMMISSIONERS for partition have no lien on commission for their ex- 
 penses, 17.5. 
 
 COMMISSIONERS, 
 
 Copyhold, costs of appearance of, on petition allowed, 44. 
 
 Ecclesiastical, costs of service on, and of their appearance, disallowed 
 
 against the company, 202. 
 Public works, of, costs payable by, 205. 
 
 COMMON LAW TAXING OFFICER, 
 
 Decision of, not subject to review, 347. 
 
 Reference may be made to a, 339. 
 COMPANIES, AMALGAMATED, to be treated as two companies for the 
 purpose of apportioning costs, 203. 
 
 COMPANIES, SEVERAL, purchase money of lands taken by, costs of 
 investment of, how to be borne, 202 ; one petition only allowed for 
 payment of dividends to person becoming entitled, 203. 
 
 COMPANY, LIMITED, 
 
 Security for costs, where liable to give, 10. 
 ' Sufficient security,' what is, to be given by, 15. 
 
 Undertaking as to damages by, not sufficient on obtaining ex parte injunc- 
 tion, 11. 
 
 COMPANY, PUBLIC, 
 
 Filing bill, where they might have proceeded under their act, disallowed 
 
 costs, 188. 
 Where bill is filed in name of a, without proper authority, 62. 
 
 COMPANY, RAILWAY, &c. 
 
 Conveyance and making out title, costs of, payable by, 208, 209. 
 
 Doubt, in case of, the court inclines to give costs against, 192, 193. 
 
 Form of order, for payment of costs by, 200. 
 
 Ground rents, costs of apportionment of, between houses, not payable by 
 the, 209. 
 
 Heirat-law becoming entitled under ultimate limitation, whether en- 
 titled to investment in lands at the expense of the, 193, n. 
 
 Investment, abortive attempts at, where costs of, allowed against, 208. 
 
 Investments, interim, where costs of, allowed against, 206 ; several, 
 where, 207, 208. 
 
 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, what costs payable by a, under the, 
 193, seq. ; what are not payable, 194, seg. 
 
 Parties, service on, and appearance of what, allowed against, 198 to 202. 
 
 Private act, costs of taking lands settled by a, 205. 
 
 Special act, under a, costs not given against, unless expressly directed, 203, 
 204 ; secus, in Exchequer, 204 ; where money paid in before transfer of 
 equity side of Exchequer, rule in Chancery prevails, ibid. 
 
 Suit, where lands taken are the subject of a, what costs payable by, 196, 
 
 Trustee Act, costs of proceedings under the, where payable by, 192 n. 
 
 Two acts, taking lands under, payment of costs how regulated, 204. 
 
 Unnecessarily served with petition, entitled to costs, 201. 
 
 Unnecessary expenses, not to be charged with, 205, 207. 
 
 Vendors devising in strict settlement, costs occasioned by, payable by, 
 193, n. 
 
 When purchase money exceeds sum paid into court, 205, 206. 
 
INDEX OF MATTEE. 521 
 
 COMPROMISE, 
 
 Solicitor's lien does not interfere with a, 397. 
 Suit, of a, where costs of preparing briefs allowed on, 354. 
 Taxiog-master cannot enter into propriety of a, between solicitor and 
 client, 347. 
 
 CONFERENCE.— See Counsel. 
 
 CONSIGNEE.— See Receiver. 
 
 CONSTRUCTION, 
 
 Contract, of the, costs of suit for specific performance, where question is 
 
 one of, 185. 
 Heir and devisee, costs as between, when question is one of, 246. 
 Will, of, costs of special case on, HO, 223. 
 Will, of, difficult, estate bears the costs in case of, 109. 
 
 CONSULTATION.— See Cotinsei,. 
 
 CONTEMPT, 
 
 Costs of, what comprised in, and amount of the, 370; how recoverable, 38, 
 350, 371; discharge of prisoner from his, nnder the Contempt Act, 372 
 to 374; discharge of prisoner without payment of the, where, 269, 368, 
 374; pauper's, may be paid out of the Suitors' Fee Fund, 269, 374. 
 
 Discharge of prisoner in, for non-payment of costs, 369, 370; of process 
 of, generally, 371. 
 
 Motion to commit for, costs of, 37, 38. 
 
 Prisoner in custody for, entitled to be discharged, cannot waive the right, 
 375. 
 
 Proceedings, what may be taken hy a party in, 37, 42, 312, 368. 
 
 Proceedings may be stayed till party in, clear his, 368 ; and in default bill 
 may be dismissed, semble, 55. 
 
 Process of, for want of answer, 371. 
 
 Sheriff, letting prisoners in, go, liability of the, see Sheriff. ' 
 
 And see Attachment, Pauper. 
 CONTRIBUTION.— See Co-befendants, Creditors' Suit, Tithes Suit. 
 CONTRIBUTORIES.— See Winding-up. 
 
 CONVEYANCE, 
 
 Costs of, payable hy company under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 
 
 208, 209. 
 Equitable mortgagee, to, of legal estate, costs of, how to be boi-ne, 151, 167. 
 Heir of purchaser, not entitled to costs of, out of personal estate, 248. 
 Settling in chambers, where purchaser's costs of, allowed, 272 ; on behalf of 
 infants, costs of, come out of estate, 255, 272. 
 CONVEYANCING COUNSEL— See Counsel. 
 
 CO-PLAINTIFF, 
 
 Amend by leaving out a, leave given to, on security for costs being given, 
 
 11,15. 
 Bankruptcy of a, order made on the, 56. 
 Death of a, order made on the, 56. 
 Deceased, defendant entitled to representation of a, 86. 
 Name of, inserted without authority, struck out with costs against solicitor, 
 
 61. 
 
 Unnecessarily made so, plaintiffs to pay costs thereby occasioned, 83, 84 
 Withdraw from suit, not permitted to, without consent of other plaintiffs, 
 49, 61. 
 
 COPY, 
 
 Bill of costs, of, how to be made, 340. 
 
 Certificate, of, attacliment invalidated by a small error in, 389. 
 
522 INDEX or MATTER. 
 
 COPYHOLDS, fines payable on investment of purchase monies in, not to be 
 borne by the company, 1 94. 
 
 COPYHOLD COMMISSIONERS.— See Commissioners. 
 
 COF.PORATION, 
 
 Charity suits, may be charged -with costs of, out of corporate funds, 142, 
 
 143. 
 Defendants, no revivor for costs by, 384. 
 Ignorance, alleging, of facts appearing from scheduled documents, to pay 
 
 costs of suit, 1 43. 
 New, under Municipal Corporations Act, succeeds to rights and liabilities 
 
 of old, 143. 
 Payment of costs by, how enforced, 367, 368. 
 Predecessors, where liable in costs for breach of trust of their, 142, 143, 
 
 296. 
 Property of, upon what, a charging order for costs may be obtained, 381. 
 Secretary of, made defendant for purpose of discovery, costs of, 151. 
 Sequestration against property of, where made absolute, 368. 
 Where persons sue as a, without title, agent responsible for costs, 283. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE, costs of copy furnished as instructions for a bill 
 disallowed, 354. 
 
 COSTS, CHARGES, AND EXPENSES, 
 
 May be comprised under just allowances, 2. 
 
 And see Execptors, Ofpicial Liquidators, Poechaser, Receiver, 
 Relator, Trustees. 
 
 COUNSEL, 
 
 Affidavits settled by, where costs of, allowed, 355. 
 
 Certificate of, special, required for pauper to appeal, 97. 
 
 Chambers, employment of, in, where allowed, 95, 355. 
 
 Clerk of, fees payable to, 356. 
 
 Conference with, where costs of, allowed, 294, 354. 
 
 Consultation with, fees on, what allowed in taxation, 353, 354. 
 
 Conveyancing, costs of investigation of title by, subject to taxation, 209 ; 
 
 fees to, 351. , 
 
 Fees to, items in respect of, should specify the particular fee paid, 309 ; 
 
 amount of, in the discretion of the taxing master, 351. 
 Number of, what allowed on taxation, 138, 236, 351, seq. 
 Observations for, costs of preparing where, and what, allowed, 354. 
 Opinion of, no protection to defendant against costs in suits for specific 
 
 performance, 80, 178 ; trustees, to what extent protected by, 123, 302. 
 Pauper, of, to take no remuneration, 266. 
 Private, costs of investigation of title by, allowed to a purchaser discharged, 
 
 273; where allowed against a company, 209 ; costs of having drafts settled 
 
 by, not allowed on taxation, 355. 
 Retaining fees to, where allowed on taxation between party and party, 353. 
 Scandal, may be made to pay costs in case of, 28. 
 
 COURT, 
 
 Payment into, under Trustee Act, trustee cannot be ordered to refund 
 
 costs of, 212 ; out of what fund payable, 216. 
 Suggestion of the, plaintiff misled by, may dismiss his bill without costs, 
 
 51 ; costs of suit instituted on, 80. 
 
 CREDITOR, 
 
 Administratrix, succeeding against beneficial interest of the, costs of, 129. 
 Bill filed by, after notice of an administration decree, dismissed with 
 
 costs, 130. 
 Coming in, after an insufficient estate apportioned, costs of, 128. 
 
INDEX OF MATTEE. 523 
 
 CREDITOR— coKhnuerf. 
 
 Failing in claim, pays costs, 129 ; and order for payment of costs by, may 
 
 be made on separate summons, ibid. 
 Joint Stock Company, of a, may sue in fomiA pauperis, l&i. 
 Prosecuting action after notice of an administration decree allowed no 
 
 costs, 131. 
 Proving his debt in chambers, what sums allowed for costs, 128. 
 Restrained from prosecuting action or suit after an administration decree, 
 
 upon what terms, 129 to 131. 
 Winding-up, under, costs of, 227. 
 
 CREDITORS' REPRESENTATIVE.— See Winding-up. 
 
 CREDITORS' SUIT, 
 
 Contribution by other creditors to costs of plaintiff in, 137. 
 
 Costs of, payable out of same fund as debts, 115, 116, 117. 
 
 Costs as between solicitor and client, where allowed to plaintiff in, 136, 
 137; to heir-at-law, where real estate exhausted, 135, 247, 248. 
 
 Mortgagee, who is also simple contract creditor, instituted by, costs of, 133. 
 
 Prosecuted after notice that there are no assets, costs, 137. 
 
 Residuary legatee not a necessary party to, where there is a trust for pay- 
 ment of debts, 83, 124. 
 
 CROSS EXAJIINATION, 
 
 Abandoned, cross-examining party must pay expenses of, 30. 
 
 Expenses of, to be paid in the first instance by the party requiring the 
 
 production of the witness to the party producing, 30, 31. 
 Interpreter, expenses of, on, how to be borne, 30. 
 
 CROSS-EXAMINE, heir may, without losing costs, 149, 242. 
 
 CROSS SUIT, 
 
 Discovery, for, costs of, 146. 
 
 Interrogatories for examination of plaintiff in original suit may be filed 
 
 without payment of costs of a, to which demurrer has been allowed, 
 
 383. 
 Plaiotiflf in a, exempted from giving security for costs, 12 ; cannot dismiss 
 
 his own bill by the common order, 48. 
 Relief, for, costs of, 147. 
 Set-off of costs of a, dismissed, irrecoverable through death of plaintiff, 
 
 against costs payable to him out of a fund in original suit, 384. 
 CROWN, ofiicer of the, not required to enter into recognisance on appeal 
 
 to the House of Lords, 97; appeal for costs will lie where costs 
 
 awarded against an, 105. 
 And see Attobney-Gesebai., Solicitor to the Treasury. 
 
 CUSTODY, illegal, service of subpoena for costs on person in, irregular, 364. 
 CUSTODY OF INFANTS ACT, a person may petition under the, in forma 
 pauperis, 265. 
 
 DAY, COSTS OF THE, 
 
 Defendant, where to be paid by, 64, 65. 
 
 Defendants, one sura to be divided amongst, for the, 64, 65. 
 
 Fixed at 10^., are, 64. 
 
 House of Lords, in, 102. 
 
 Plaintiff, where payable by, 63 to 65. 
 
 Solicitor, where payable by. 285. 
 
 Where defect occurs after cause at issue, not allowed, 65. 
 
 DEATH of plaintiff or defendant, consequences of, see Dismissal before 
 THE Hearing, 
 
524 INDEX "pF MATTER. 
 
 DEBT, specifically bequeathed, cosfj of getting in, allowed out of general 
 estate, 119, «. ' 
 
 DEBTS, .':■■• '\ . 
 
 Costs of administration suit payable in priority to, 135. 
 Executojs entitl'ed to retain their own, in priority to costs, 119. 
 
 DECREE, 
 
 Costs of enrolling the, not allowed on taxation between party and party, 
 
 357. ■ 
 Reversed; costs of proceedings under, not allowed, 102. 
 
 DEEDS, 
 
 Charges for, in bills of costs, to specify number of folios, 309. 
 Dniovery of, costs of suit by heir for, 246. 
 Mortgage, costs incurred respecting the, 167. 
 
 DEFAULT AT HEARING, 
 
 Appeal, of, where appellant or respondent makes, 102, 103. 
 Defendant, by, practice in case of, 94, 95. 
 
 Plaintiff, by, practice in case of, in a cause, 94 ; on motion for decree, see 
 Addenda to ibid. 
 
 DEFENDANT, 
 
 Authority of, -where bill is filed by, liable to solicitor on its being taken off • 
 
 the file or dismissed, 62. 
 Deceased, whether representative of, may dismiss the bill in default of re- 
 vivor, 57, 58 ; proceedings in a fresh suit by original plaintiff against 
 
 the representatives of a, may be stayed till costs of the first suit are 
 
 paid, 383, 
 Default at hearing, making, 94, 95. 
 Demur, omitting to, loses costs, 78. 
 Discovery, made a party for, only, costs of, 151. 
 Dismissed with costs has no lien on funds in suit, 381; or on real estate, 
 
 ibid. 
 Notice of motion for dismissal, &c. of bill filed without authority, should 
 
 not be served on, 61. 
 Plaintiff, refusing to join the, as co-plaintiff, when in the same interest, 
 
 84 ; infant, not made a co-plaintiff, how costs occasioned thereby to be 
 
 borne, 78. 
 Plea, may lose costs by not filing a, 78. 
 Poverty, unable to answer by reason of. Court may assign solicitor and 
 
 counsel to, 268. 
 Prisoner, Lord Chancellor may assign solicitor to, on report of solicitor to 
 
 Suitors' Fee Fund, 268, 269, n. 
 Security for costs, where liable to give, U. 
 Unnecessary party, who is an, entitled to costs from plaintiff, 83 ; but 
 
 should object by answer, 84 ; claiming an interest, may yet have bill 
 
 dismissed against him, but without costs, 84; remaining before court, 
 
 and attending proceedings under decree, ibid. 
 And see Co-defendants, Disclaiming Defendant. 
 
 DELIVERY.— See Bills of Costs. 
 
 DEMUR, 
 
 Defendant may, without prejudice to right to security for costs, 13, 16. 
 
 Defendant omitting to, deprived of costs, 78. 
 
 DEMURRER, 
 
 Allegations preventing cause being heard on, effect of, on costs of suit, 
 
 77,78. 
 To whole bill allowed, defendant's name struck out of record after, 22. 
 
INDEX OF JIATTER. 525 
 
 DEMURRERS, -t ' . 
 
 AUowed costs of, 20, 21 ; partially, 18 ; with leave to amend, 21 ; costs 
 ot, pending motion included in costs of, 22 ; .what costs allowed on tax- 
 ation, 354. 
 Costs of, not filed hefore amendment of bill, costs-itr-caus&, 22 
 Ore tenus, costs of, 22, 23. - , 
 
 Overruled, costs of, 18, 19; partially, 18 ; on appeal, 19, 
 Plaintiff not setting down, pays costs by order of course, 23. 
 Submitted to, costs of, before set down, 21, 22 ; after set dowii, 22. 
 Time for setting down, 23, «. ' , • 
 
 AA'itnesses, by, costs of, 19. 
 
 DEPOSIT, 
 
 Appellant, by, a security for costs only, 96 ; return of the, a disposal of 
 
 costs of appeal, 101. 
 Auctioneer entitled to retain costs, &c., out of, 155, 188. 
 Railway company, by, on entering on lands, vendor has no lien on the, for 
 
 costs, 210, 211. 
 Specific performance, on bill for, dismissed with costs, no set-off of costs 
 
 against the, 188 ; but refusal by vendor to return it may influence costs, ib. 
 
 DEVISEE, disclaimer of, to what period it relates, 81 ; and see Addenda. 
 
 DISBURSEMENTS, what may be entered in solicitor's bill of costs, 304, n., 
 342. 
 
 DISCLAIMING DEFENDANT, 
 
 Answer of, plaintiff filing replication to, 79, 83. 
 
 Costs of, rules as to, 81 to 83. 
 
 Dismissal before the hearing of a, by plaintifi', 49 ; on defendant's own 
 
 application, 60. 
 Evidence, where entitled to go into, 83. 
 Foreclosure decree may be made against a, 81, n. 
 Should ofl^er to have the bill dismissed, without costs, 82. 
 
 DISCLAIMING TRUSTEE, where, and what costs allowed to, 292. 
 
 DISCOVERY, 
 
 Action at law, suit for, in aid of an, no set-off of costs in equity against costs 
 
 at law, 93, 151. 
 Bank of England made defendant for purpose of, only, demurrer will lie 
 
 by, 238. 
 Commission to examine witnesses, where bill for, also prays a, costs, 149. 
 Cross suit for, costs of, 146. 
 Deeds, of, costs of suit by heir for, 246. 
 
 Defendant made a party to a bill for relief for, only, costs of, 151. 
 Hearing, suits for, not brought to a, or dismissed for want of prosecution, 
 
 53, 148. 
 Injunction, where bill for, also prays, defendant unsuccessfully resisting 
 
 pays costs of motion, 148, 149. 
 Perpetuation of testimony, where bill for, also seeks, 149. 
 Revivor of suit for, 151. 
 Suit for, defendant entitled to costs of a, from plaintiff on putting in a full 
 
 answer, 148 ; though plaintiff bankrupt, ibid. ; or bill contains a prayer 
 
 for further relief, ibid. 
 DISENTAILING DEED of purchase monies paid into court, whether com- 
 pany must pay costs of a, 195. 
 
 DISMISSAL BEFORE THE HEARING, 
 
 After the cause is set down, equivalent to dismissal on the merits, 48. 
 Appearance, before, by plaintiff, without costs, 47. 
 
526 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 DISMISSAL BEFORE THE HEARING— conirauerf. 
 
 Appearance, after, by order of course, with costs, 48 ; though plaintiff sues 
 on behalf of others, 49 ; -whether after demurrer to whole bill allowed, 
 48. 
 
 Appearance, after, on special application, Court has jurisdiction to, and will 
 in what cases, direct, without costs, 50. 
 
 Bankruptcy, on, of sole plaintiff, without costs, 56, 57 ; of co-plaintiff, with 
 costs against other plaintiffs, 57. 
 
 Co-plaintiff, none by a, as to himself, without consent of other plain- 
 tiffs, 49. 
 
 Cross suit, none of a, by plaintiff in it, where, 48. 
 
 Death, on, of sole plaintiff, without costs in default of revivor, 56 ; of 
 co-plaintiff, with costs against survivors in default of revivor, ibid. 
 
 Deceased defendant, whether by representatives of a, in default of revivor, 
 57, 58. 
 
 Default, where plaintiff makes, in performance of some act, pending which 
 proceedings have been stayed, with costs, 55. 
 
 Defendants, as to some only, 59; but not if plaintiff has elected to sue 
 them jointly, 49. 
 
 Disclaiming defendant, of, 49, 60. 
 
 Election, on, of plaintiff to sue at law, with costs, 60. 
 
 In forma pauperis, none by' plaintiff suing, without costs, by order ex 
 parte, 49. 
 
 Infant's suit, in, if improperly instituted, on defendant's application, 60, 
 252, n. ; or by infant himself, by a next friend, for the purpose of the 
 application, 53 ; but infant coming of age cannot dismiss with costs 
 against the next friend, ibid. 
 
 Prosecution, for want of, with costs, 54, 55 ; and the Court will not enter 
 into the merits, ibid. ; and although defendant is bankrupt, 54 ; but de- 
 fendant's motion may stand over for plaintiff to move to dismiss without 
 costs, 64. 
 
 Prosecution, for want of, motion for, irregular when plaintiff or a co-plain- 
 tiff becomes bankrupt or dies, 56, 57 ; costs of motion for, see Motion. 
 
 Satisfaction of plaintiff's demand, and payment of all the costs of the suit 
 by the defendant, on, 58; but not if any question is left, 59. 
 
 Solicitor, with costs against the, of bill filed without proper authority on 
 plaintiff's application, 60, 61 ; on defendant's application, 62. 
 
 DISTRINGAS, proceedings by, against a corporation for recovery of costs, 367. 
 
 DOCUMENTS, 
 
 Copies of, solicitor furnishing, allowed only stationer's charges, 357. 
 Costs of proving, where notice to admit has not been given, 79; where 
 
 parties neglect to admit after notice, ibid. 
 Inspection and transmission of, for the purpose of taxation, 343. 
 Production of, where enforced, notwithstanding solicitor's lien, 391, 392 ; 
 
 order for, made on solicitor discharging himself, 395. 
 Production of, at solicitor's ofBce, what costs allowed in case of,- 357. 
 
 DONATIO MORTIS CAUSA, costs of suit to establish a. 111. 
 
 DOWER, no costs of suit for asssignment of, 151 ; unless defendant has kept 
 doweress out, or denied her title, 152. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.— See Commissioners. 
 ECCLESIASTICAL COURT, costs of suit in the, postponed to costs 
 administration suit, 119. 
 
 ELECTION of plaintiff to sue at law, bill dismissed with costs on, 60. 
 
INDEX or MATTER. 527 
 
 ELEGIT, 
 
 Consolidated Orders relating to writs of, 377, 378. 
 
 Payment of costs enforced by writ of, between party and party, 377 ; be- 
 tween solicitor and client, 3S9. 
 
 ENGINEERS, employed to assist tbe court, fees to, 351. 
 
 ENGROSSMENT, solicitor's lien on an, not lost by its being executed, 391. 
 
 ESTATE, 
 
 Appeal will lie, as to costs given out of an, 105. 
 
 Revivor for costs given out of an, 384. 
 
 Where costs are charged upon an. Court will direct a sale for purposes of 
 
 raising them, 118, 173, 386. 
 And see Reai, Estate. 
 
 EVIDENCE, 
 
 Costs, on question of, what may be used, 85, 86. 
 
 Disclaiming defendant, where entitled to go into, 83. 
 
 New, where admitted in Court of Appeal, 104, n. ; costs of, how to be 
 
 borne, and effect of introduction of, on costs of appeal, 104. 
 Review of taxation, what, receivable on, 346. 
 Shorthand writer's note of the, where allowed on taxation, 356. 
 Unnecessary, costs of, how and when disposed of, 46, 79, 350. 
 
 EX PARTE, 
 
 Order dates only from time of service, where, 36, n., 267. 
 Where application should be, costs of service disallowed, 44. 
 
 EXAMINERS, fees payable to, 356. 
 
 EXCEPTIONS, 
 
 Allowed on argument, costs of, follow result, but must be mentioned in the 
 
 order, 27 ; are taxed costs, ibid. 
 Charity suits, in, trustees not allowed costs of, where Attorney-General 
 
 has filed a similar set, 144. 
 Impertinence, for, abolished, 29. 
 Scandal, for, costs of, 27 to 29. 
 
 Set- ofip of costs of, allowed and disallowed, 27, 28, and see Addenda. 
 Submitted to, costs of, 28 ; how recovered, 376. 
 
 EXCHEQUER, COURT OF, rule in, as to payment of costs by company, 
 paying money into court, 204. 
 
 EXECUTION, 
 
 Lien, or right of set-off for costs not discharged by taking the debtor's 
 
 body in, 362, 398. 
 Married woman cannot be taken in, for costs, 257. 
 Party taking the debtor's body in, cannot proceed \ij fi.fa., 362. 
 
 EXECDTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 
 
 Accounts, not justified in refusing, to solicitors of parties, 109 ; refusing, 
 
 where charged with, and with what, costs, 108, 122; neglect by, to 
 
 render, not equivalent to refusal, 108, 109. 
 Administration suit, entitled to costs of, in priority to all other parties 
 
 and debts, though estate insolvent, 135 ; unless they improperly deny 
 
 assets, 289. 
 Assignees of bankrupt, costs of, in an administration suit, 126. 
 Bankrupt, set-off of costs awarded to, against balance due from, 128, 240. 
 Breach of trust, where disallowed, or charged with costs occasioned by, 
 
 121, 297. 
 Claiming beneficially, costs of, 123, 124. 
 Client, of, solicitor's lien valid against, 393, 399 ; where personally 
 
 for bills of costs, 393. 
 
528 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS-con«m«cd. 
 
 Co- executor, refusing tojoin their, as co-plaintiffs, not allowed costs, 1 1 9, 1 20. 
 ' Costs, charges, and expenses,' what, and where allowed to, 2, 119, 290, 294. 
 Counsel, how far protected by opinion of, against costs, 123, 302. _ 
 Debts, entitled to retain their own, in priority to the costs of the suit, 119. 
 Defaulting, suit against personal representative of, costs of, how to he 
 
 borne, 116, 122. 
 Defending testator's estate against claims, where allowed costs incurred 
 
 in, 122, 294, and see Addenda. 
 In forma pauperis, where allowed to sue, 264. 
 
 Interest on balances, though charged with, not refused costs, 120, 121. 
 Jointly charged with costs, where, 122, 295. 
 Legacy, refusing to pay a, 122 ; or secure it in court, 123. 
 Legal doubts, having, in a clear case, 123, 300. 
 Misconduct, what, will deprive, of costs, 120 to 123, 298 to 301. 
 Negligence will not deprive, of costs of suit, 120, 121, 298 j unless gross 
 
 and wilful, ibid. 
 ' Parties chargeable,' may be, under Attornies and Solicitors Act, 312. 
 Perversely, acting, or with unreasonable caution, 122. 
 Professional, what costs allowed to, 294, 295. 
 Security for costs, liable to give, where resident abroad, 5. 
 Solicitor, of a, entitled to insist on lien, 394. 
 Solicitor and client, entitled to costs as between, 2, 119, 290. 
 Stock, disallowed-Sihe costs of transferring, into their own names, 294. 
 Taxation of bills of costs of solicitor of, by legatee, 333. 
 And see Administration of Assets, Greditoes' Suit, Legatees' 
 
 SniT, Trustees. 
 
 EXTRA COSTS, entry of items for, only, without mentioning taxed costs 
 received from the other side, not a sufficient bill of costs, 310. 
 
 FEES. — See Counsel, Solicitor. 
 
 FIERI FACIAS, 
 
 Consolidated Orders relating to writs of, 377, 379. 
 Party proceeding by, may also have a sequestration, 362, 377, n. 
 Party taking the body of debtor in execution cannot proceed by, 362. 
 Payment of costs enforced by, between party and party, 377 ; between 
 
 solicitor and client, 389. 
 Two writs of, may be issued in different counties, 377, n. 
 
 FIERI FACIAS DE BONIS ECCLESIASTICIS, Consolidated Orders 
 relating to writs of, 379. 
 
 FIXED COSTS, 
 
 Amendment of bill, where payable on, 24. 
 
 Day, costs of the, are, 65. 
 
 Exceptions submitted to, costs of, are, 27 ; but not, where allowed on 
 
 argument, 28. 
 Motion to dismiss for want of prosecution, costs of, where plaintiff files 
 
 replication, are not, 36. 
 Recovery of, 376. 
 
 FORECLOSURE DECREE, where time for payment in a, is enlarged in- 
 terest payable on amount of the costs, 381, n. 
 
 FORECLOSURE, SUIT FOR, 
 
 Costs of cross suit to redeem, not allowed in, 170. 
 
 Defendant does not pay costs of, personally, 155 ; unless he disputes the 
 
 validity of the mortgage, 156, 157. 
 Defendants in, assigning pendente lite, should offer to have bill dismissed 
 
 without costs, 82. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 529 
 
 FORECLOSURE, SUIT FOR-coniinued. 
 
 Disclaiming defendants, costs of, in, 81 to 83 ; a decree may be made in 
 against, 81. * 
 
 Extraneous matter, or unnecessary parties, plaintiff pays costs occasioned 
 by, 165, 166. 
 
 Married woman entitled for her separate use, by, costs of husband in 
 88, 260. ' 
 
 Notice of intention to redeem will not save costs of, 164. 
 
 Puisne incumbrancers, by, costs of, 157, 158. 
 
 Sale, where bill prays in the alternative, costs, 158, 159. 
 
 Sub-mortgagees, plaintiff entitled to costs of, against mortgagor, 166. 
 
 Tender, effect of, oncosts of, 163, 164. 
 
 Trustee for plaintiff, made defendant, costs of, allowed against mortgagor, 
 166. 
 
 Trustee to bar dower of mortgagor, a proper party to, 166. 
 
 And see Incumbrancers, Mortgagee. 
 
 FOREIGNER, temporarily residing in this country, not required to give 
 security for costs, 5. 
 
 FRAUD, 
 
 Allegations of, effect of, on costs of demurrer allowed, 21. 
 
 Bill, untenable, dismissed before the hearing without costs.where defendant 
 
 has confessedly been guilty of, 51. 
 Charges of, unproven, effect of, on costs of the suitt73, 74, 278. 
 Solicitor may be made a party to a suit for mere purpose of praying costs 
 
 against him, in case of, 278. 
 Solicitor's bill of costs may always be re-opened in case of, 329. 
 Where deeds set aside for, costs are part of the relief, 385. 
 And see Action at Law. 
 
 FUNDS recovered in the suit, solicitor's lien on, 396, seq. ; charge on, 399. 
 FUND, COSTS OUT OF A, 
 
 Appeal for costs will lie as to, 105. 
 
 Payment of, how obtained, 385, 336. 
 
 Revivor for, there may be, 384. 
 
 Solicitor, ordered to be paid to the, directly, 2, 89. 
 
 Taxation of, distinction made in, according to party's interest in the fund, 2. 
 
 FUNERAL EXPENSES, not comprised in executor's ' costs, charges, and 
 expenses,' 294. 
 
 FURTHER CONSIDERATION, 
 
 Adjournment of, reserves costs of the suit, without express meniion, 
 
 where, 65. 
 Costs of, not reserved, where the ' costs of the suit ' are disposed of at the 
 first hearing, 66. 
 
 GARNISHEE ORDER, solicitor's lien on funds recovered has priority over 
 a, 397. 
 
 GENERAL CHARGES apportion able, where, 91, 92. 
 
 GROSS SUM, 
 
 Agreement by solicitor to take, in lieu of past costs, not void, 314; secus, 
 
 as to future costs, iliid. 
 Bill of costs, in, where solicitor has charged a, he may supply a detailed 
 
 explanation of it, on taxation, 342. 
 Interlocutory applications, may be allowed in lieu of taxed costs of, 46. 
 Payment of, by client, without delivery of bill of costs, effect of, on right 
 to taxation, 322. 
 
 M M 
 
530 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 GROUND RENTS, costs of apportioning, 'betweea houses taken and not 
 
 taken, are not payable by the company, 209. 
 GUARDIAN AD LITEM, costs of, 240 to 242. 
 
 HABEAS CORPUS, 
 
 Prisoner may be brought up on a writ of, and turned over on his own 
 
 application, 365, -n. 
 Returns to writs of, to be filed in Record and Writ Clerk's Office, 365, n. 
 Whitecross Street Prison, -whether prisoner can be turned over to, by, 
 
 365, 366. 
 
 HEARING, 
 
 Cause may be brought to a, on the question of costs alone, 93. 
 Costs of the suit, where, and how disposed of at the, 65, 66. 
 Default at the, where plaintiff makes, 94, and see Addenda ; where a 
 defendant makes, 94, 95. 
 
 HEIR AT LAW, 
 
 Charity cases, costs of, in, 247. 
 
 Construction, where question between the, and a devisee is one of, 246. 
 
 Entitled under the ultimate limitation in a settlement, whether entitled to 
 
 investment in land at the expense of the company, 193, «. 
 Favour to, present inclination of court not to show, 246 
 Infant, costs of obtaining reconveyance of mortgaged estate from an, 171, 
 
 221 ; costs of suit for specific performance against an, 186 ; are costs 
 
 occasioned by litigation between 'adverse claimants,' 187, 192, n. 
 Insanity of testator, where the, sets up, and fails, 243. 
 Issue devisavit val non, not entitled to, as of course, 245. 
 Lunatic, of mortgagee, costs of obtaining reconveyance from, 171. 
 Lunatic's, costs of appearance of, allowed in proceedings with reference to 
 
 land taken compulsorily, against the company, 198. 
 Mortgagee's, cosis of, as defendant in foreclosure suit by devisee, not . 
 
 allowed against the mortgagor, 165. 
 Pedigree, costs of proving his, how to be borne, 124, 125, 247. 
 Perpetuation of testimony, costs of, in suits for, 149, 242. 
 Purchaser's, entitled to costs of suit for a re-sale, fiom administratrix, 
 
 187 ; not entitled to costs of conveyance of real estate contracted for, 
 
 out of personal estate, 248. 
 Solicitor and client, entitled to costs as between, in administration suit, 
 
 where real estate exhausted by creditors, 135, 247, 248. 
 Spoliation of will, pays costs, where guilty of, 242, 245. 
 Vendor's, refusing to convey, pays costs of suit for specific performance, 
 
 187, 243. 
 Will, costs of, in suits to establish a, 242 to 245; in suits to impeach a, 
 
 245, 246. 
 HOUSE OF LORDS, 
 
 Appeals to, costs of, generally, 96 to 104. 
 
 Default, where appellant or respondent makes, in, costs, 102, 103. 
 
 Evidence, new, cannot be used in, 104, n. 
 
 Objections to competency of an appeal to, how to be taken, and costs 
 
 occasioned by, how to be borne, 103. 
 Payment of costs under order of, how enforced, 386, 387. 
 Respondent never pays costs of appeal in the, 100. 
 Trustee respondent entitled to appear by counsel, but not to print a case or 
 
 appendix, 104. 
 HUSBAND, 
 
 Costs of suit by, after wife's death, 263. 
 
 And see Bankkupt, Fokeclosuke Suit, Husband and Wife, Married 
 
 Woman. 
 
INDEX OF MATTEE. 531 
 
 HUSBAND AND "WIFE, 
 
 Co-plaintiffs, suing jointly as, the husband solely liable for costs, 2G1 ; if 
 
 hushand dies, wife may continue suit or not, 261 ; her liability for costs, 
 
 if she continues suit, ibid. 
 Costs of bin against, dismissed, set off against payments to be made by 
 
 husband alone, 92. 
 Defending jointly, costs, 261. 
 
 Defending separately, -(vhere allowed separate sets of costs, 262. 
 Demurrer in suits between, whether allowed without costs, 20, 21. 
 Litigation between, costs of, 260, 262, 263. 
 Marriage of feme sole plaintiff, husband reviving suit abated by, entitled 
 
 to and liable for costs from commencement, 261, 262. 
 Separation between, costs of suit to enforce agreement for, 260. 
 
 IMPERTINENCE, exceptions for, abolished, 29. 
 
 IMPERTINENT MATTER, costs of, to be considered at the hearing, 349. 
 
 IMPROPER LENGTH.— See Prolixity. 
 
 IMPROPRIETY .of proceedings, taxing master may take .into consideration, 
 on the common order, 318. 
 
 IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 
 
 Application to defend, suppressing report under Contempt Act, irregular, 
 
 26.5. 
 Married woman may sue, without next friend, 257 ; order for, how 
 
 obtained, ibid., 258. 
 Next friend of infant, whether, may sue, 254. 
 
 Order to sue, not discharged for irregularity after lapse of time, 266. 
 Proceedings, what may be taken, 264. 
 Service of notice of motion to dismiss, where application to sue, is made 
 
 after, costs, 267. 
 Stamp on order to sue, whether costs of, can be remitted, 267. 
 Unserved order of course to sue or defend, effect of, 267. 
 Who may sue or defend, 263, 264. 
 And see Paupee. 
 INCUMBENT, costs of order for payment of dividends to now, to be paid by 
 
 company, 194. 
 
 INCUMBRANCERS, 
 
 Puisne, costs of suit by, for foreclosure and redemption, 157; to ascertam 
 
 priorities, 13S ; consenting to sale in foreclosure suit, costs of. 168. 
 Solicitor's lien valid against, on client's interest, 392. 
 And see Assignees, Mortgagee, Partition Suit. 
 INCUMBRANCES, costs of application of purchase money in discharge of, not 
 to be borne by the company, 194 ; except under special circumstances, 
 195. 
 
 INFANT, 
 
 Any person may file a bill in the name of an, 248. 
 
 Coming of age, may elect to repudiate or adopt suit, 252 ; liability of, to 
 costs, ibid., 253 ; cannot move to dismiss bill with costs against next 
 friend, 253 ; co-plaintiff, may have his name struck out of bill before 
 or after decree, ibid. ; costs of application by, to enlarge time for ap- 
 pealing, 256. . 
 
 Contempt of, costs occasioned by, to be borne by the plamtifi, 256. 
 
 Conveyance, costs of settling, in chambers on behalf of an, come out of 
 
 estate, 255, 272.; ,,.,,,,,,, 
 
 Defendant, costs of, how to be borne, 255 ; where he should have been a 
 
 co-plaintiff, 78, 256. . 
 
 Dvin" before taxation, costs cannot be recovered from next fnend, 249. 
 
 ■' ° M M 2 
 
532 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 INFANT— coBft'nwed. 
 
 Guardian ad litem to, costs of, how to be borne, 241. 
 
 Heir. — See Heir at Law. 
 
 Inquiry -whether suit is for the benefit of an, when and on whose applica- 
 tion granted, 250 ; should not be added to a decree for accounts, ibid. 
 
 Next friend of. — See Next Friend. 
 
 Real estate of, may be sold for payment of costs, in administration suit, 
 118 ; in partition suit, 173, 174. 
 
 Ward of court, prima facie for the benefit of an, to be made a, 115, 250. 
 
 Where suit is found not to be for the benefit of an, costs, 250. 
 
 Where two or more suits are instituted in the name of an, costs of suits in 
 which proceedings are stayed, how to be borne, 252. 
 INFORMATION, 
 
 Bill and, relief may be given on information, though bill dismissed, 139. 
 
 Relator filing, where petition only necessary, costs, 77, 139. 
 
 Relator's authority, filed without, though afterwards assented to, taken oflf 
 the file, with costs against solicitor, 62. 
 
 And see Attorney- General, Charity Suits. 
 
 INQUIRIES, &c., under reversed decree, costs of, not allowed in costs of bill 
 dismissed on appeal, 102. 
 
 INSANITY of testator, where heir sets up, and fails, costs, 243, 244. 
 
 INSOLVENT, 
 
 Defendant, where bill dismissed against, without costs, 50. 
 
 Estate, executors entitled to costs out of an, 135 ; so, residuary legatees, or 
 plaintitf in legatee's suit, ibid. ; secus, next of kin, 136. 
 
 Not a,' party chargeable ' within Attornies and Solicitors Act, 312. 
 
 And see Assignees, Bankrupt. 
 INTEREST, 
 
 Agreement to allow, on untaxed bills of costs, where invalid, 390. 
 
 Costs, on, where payable, 381, 382, 389, 390. 
 
 Executors charged with, on balances. — See Executors. 
 
 Solicitor cannot be charged with, on common order for taxation, 317. 
 
 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, 
 
 Affidavits filed on, cannot be used on question of costs of the suit, where, 85. 
 Costs of the suit cannot be disposed of on, upon the merits or adversely to 
 
 defendants, unless by consent, 51, 52. 
 Issues, costs of, may be disposed of on, 69. 
 
 INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS, costs of, generally, 31 to 47 ; how 
 recovered, 368. 
 
 INTERLOCUTORY ORDER, no deposit required on appeal from an, 97. 
 INTERPLEADER, costs of proceedings in the nature of, 155. 
 INTERPLEADER SUIT, 
 
 Co-defendants, order for payment of costs made between, in, 153. 
 
 Collusion between plaintiif and one defendant in, costs in case of, 154, 284. 
 
 Demur, defendant in, may, after the fund is in court, 154, 155. 
 
 Failing defendant pays costs of, 152, 153. 
 
 Plaintiff has lien on funds, for his costs of, 153 ; to be taxed as between 
 
 party and party only, but including costs at law, 155; but cannot obtain 
 
 them before the hearing, 153; and may lose them by misconduct, 154; 
 
 disallowed costs of unnecessary evidence, proceedings, &c. 154, 349. 
 Security for costs, defendant in, where liable to give, 1 1. 
 Set-off of costs of, where part of bill dismissed, 153. 
 Where there is no case for interpleader, costs, 154. 
 Where all claims but one withdrawn, should not be brought to a hearinn- 
 
 152. "' 
 
INDEX OF MATTKl!. 533 
 
 INTERPRETER, 
 
 Costs of examination and cross-examination through an, to 1)6 borne by 
 
 examining party, 30. 
 Where costs of employment of, allowed on taxation between party and 
 
 party, 356. 
 
 INTERROGATORIES, 
 
 Costs of, where disallowed, 330, 351. 
 
 Defendant may file, for examination of plaintiff, without first paying the 
 costs of a cross suit to which a demurrer has been allowed, 383. 
 
 INTESTACY, plaintiff filing a bill on the footing of an, may have costsi 
 
 though will afterwards discovered, 115. 
 INVESTMENT, 
 
 Interim, of purchase monies paid into court, where costs of, allowed 
 
 against the company, 206. 
 Legacy, of, in real estate, costs of, how to be borne, 112. 
 Not carried out, costs of, where payable by the company, 208. 
 Petition of tenant for life for, of purchase monies, paid into court, on 
 
 whom to be served, 199 ; where fuud is standing to credit of a cause, 
 
 ibid, 
 
 INVESTMENTS, SEVERAL, where costs of, allowed against the company, 
 207, 208. 
 
 IRREGULAR MOTION, COSTS OF.— See Motion. 
 
 IRREGULAR ORDER, 
 
 In force until discharged, semble, 40. 
 
 Notice of motion to discharge, need not specify the ground of irregularity, 
 
 40. 
 Order to discharge with costs, carries costs of the application, 40. 
 
 IRREGULARITY, 
 
 Costs of motion occasioned by an, see Motion. 
 
 Slight, summary applications in case of, not encouraged, 40. 
 
 SubpiEna for costs, in, effect of, 363. 
 
 Taxing master's certificate, in copy of, effect of, 389. 
 
 "Waiver of, in order of course to amend, 27 ; in order of course for taxa- 
 tion, 315. 
 ISSUE, devisavlt vel non, heir not entitled to, as of course, 245 ; costs of, 243 
 
 to 246. 
 ISSUES, 
 
 Costs of, generally, 69, 70. 
 
 Interlocutory application, costs of, may be disposed of on, 69. 
 
 New trial, costs in case of a, 70 ; costs of first trial must be paid, 383, 38-j. 
 
 Several, found each way, costs of, 70. 
 
 JUDGMENT, 
 
 Allocatur of taxing master does not create a, 389. 
 
 Order for payment of costs enforced as a, between party and party, 377 to 
 382 ; between solicitor and client, 389. 
 JUDGMENT CREDITOE, solicitor's lien on funds recovered has priority 
 
 over a, 397. 
 JURISDICTION, 
 
 Application which the Court has not any, to grant, or to enforce an 
 
 order made thereon, may be dismissed with costs, 39. 
 Concurrent, in law and equity, costs of suit, where there is, 71. 
 Plaintiff out of the, to give security for costs, where, 3 to 5, 
 Service out of the, of subpoena for costs irregular, 364. 
 
534. INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 LACHES, costs of the suit how affected by, in instituting or prosecuting the 
 suit, 74, 75, 112. 
 
 LANDS CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1845. 
 Costs under, 189 to 211. 
 Sections of, should not be set out in petition, 205. 
 
 LAPSE OF TIME, bill dismissed on grounds of, alone, without costs, 177, 278. 
 
 LAW, 
 
 Mistake as to, where bill dismissed without costs in case of a, 50, 76. 
 'New, where point of, is, no costs of the suit are given, 75. 
 Where the, is changed pending the suit by a case being overruled, plaintiff 
 may dismiss his bill without costs, 50, 51, 76. 
 
 LAW, ACTION AT.— See Action at Law. 
 
 LAW, COURT OF, costs of obtaining opinion of a, where costs in the 
 cause, 69. 
 
 LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT ACT (22 & 23 Vict. c. 35), costs 
 under, 230. 
 
 LEASEHOLDS, costs of half-yearly sales of stock representing the purchase 
 monies of, payable by the company, 194. 
 
 LEASES AND SALES OF SETTLED ESTATES ACT, costs under, 229, 
 230. 
 
 LEGACIES, abatement of, for payment of costs of administration suit, if assets 
 
 insufficient, 134, 135. 
 LEGACY, 
 
 Costs of suit to establish title to a, 1 1 1 ; or declare rights of parties in a, 
 ihid.; or to have a, secured. 111, 112, 113; or to raise a, charged on 
 real estate, 124. 
 Investment of, in real estate, how costs to be borne, 112. 
 Members of a class entitled to a, costs of ascertaining the, how to be 
 borne, 124. 
 
 LEGAL ESTATE.— See Conveyance. 
 
 LEGAL TITLE 
 
 Appeal for costs will lie, where a bill failing to establish a, is dismissed 
 
 without costs, 105. 
 Plaintiff, suing in respect of a, successful, entitled to costs both at law and 
 in equity, 68; unsuccessful, to pay costs, 69, 105. 
 
 LEGATEE 
 
 May obtain taxation of bill of costs of executor's solicitor, where, 334, 
 
 335 ; form of order for that purpose, 337. 
 And see Legatee's Suit. 
 
 LEGATEE, RESIDUARY.— See Residuary Legatee. 
 
 LEGATEE'S SUIT, 
 
 Admission of assets in a, extends to costs, 112 ; where executor is charged 
 on an, costs, ibid. 
 
 Considered to be instituted on behalf of all the legatees, 111. 
 
 Contingent, where plaintiff's interest is, and fails pending the suit, no costs 
 of a, 112. 
 
 Costs of a, generally, how payable, 1 11 to 1 14. 
 
 Executors, where costs of a, are payable by, personally, 122, 123; and see 
 Executors. 
 
 PlaintiflF should exhaust every means of obtaining payment before insti- 
 tuting a, 112; where entitled to costs of a, in priority to debts, 135; 
 where allowed costs as between solicitor and client in a, 1 36. 
 
IJiDEX OF irATTER. 535 
 
 LEGATEE'S SVIT— continued. 
 
 Prosecuted after notice of an administration decree ia anotlier suit, -wliere 
 proceedings will be stayed, and costs, 132 ; after notice of no assets, 
 costs, 137. 
 
 LESSEE, costs of, iu a partition suit, to be borne by lessor, 174. 
 LETTERS, -n-ritten ' without prejudice ' may be read on question of costs, 85 
 though not referred to in the pleadings, semble, ibid. 
 
 LIABILITY, 
 
 Items in a bill of costs, respecting which the client disputes his; do-not 
 
 constitute an overcharge, 328. 
 Petitioner cannot dispute his, for bill of costs, while order for taxation 
 
 stands, 389. 
 
 LIEN. — See Coiimissioners, Defendant, Deposit, Solicitor's Lien, 
 Trustees. 
 
 LORD CHANCELLOR, 
 
 Costs of application to, as visitor of charitable foundations, 145. 
 Meaning of, in 23 & 24 Viet. c. 149, 269, -i. ; in 6 & 7 Vict. u. 73, 310, n. 
 
 LOSS OF TIJIE, where professional trustee allowed compensation for, 29.1. 
 
 LUXACY, costs of proceedings in, occasioned by purchase of lands taken com. 
 pulsoriiy, to be borne by the company, 198 ; to obtain reconveyance 
 of mortgaged estate, how to be borne, 171, 221. 
 
 LUNATIC, 
 
 Guardian ad litem to, costs of, by whom to be borne, 240 ; where lunatic 
 
 recovers pendente lite, ibid. 
 Reconveyance of mortgaged estate, costs of obtaining from a, how to be 
 
 borne, 171, 221. 
 Specific performance, no costs of suit for, against, 186. 
 Trustee, costs of obtaining conveyance from a, 171, 221. 
 
 MARRIAGE, of sole female plaintiff, order made on, 56. 
 
 MARRIED WOMAN, 
 
 Bill cannot be filed in name of a, without her consent, 256. 
 Costs of a, generally, 256 to 263. 
 
 Equity to a settlement, costs of suit by, to enforce, 239, 260 ; costs of pro- 
 ceedings to enforce, out of what fund payable, 262. 
 Estate of a, costs of administering, where will is made under a power, 1 18. 
 Execution, cannot be taken in, for costs, 257. 
 Eraud of, husband not responsible in costs for, 262. 
 In forma pauperis, may sue, without a next friend, 9, 257, seq.; how costs 
 
 becoming payable to a, so suing, ordered to be paid, ibid. 
 Infant co-plaintiff, on coming of age, may have her name struck out of 
 
 the bill, 253, 254. 
 Motion by, without a next friend, costs of a, payable by solicitor, 39. 
 Next friend of, see Next Fbiend. 
 
 ' Party chargeable,' may be a, under Attornies and Solicitors Act, 312. 
 Separate estate of a, liability of, to costs of suit by, 257 ; for solicitor's 
 
 bills of costs, 259 ; to be enforced by suit in equity, 388. 
 Suit of a, by a new next friend, after death of next friend in a former suit, 
 
 proceedings in, cannot be stayed till costs of former suit are paid, 383. 
 Surviving her husband, liability of. for costs of joint suit, 261; entitled by 
 
 survivorship to costs ordered to be paid to husband, ibid. 
 Trustees refusing to transfer funds of a, where disallowed or charged with 
 
 costs, 301 ; where entitled to pay share of a, into court, under the 
 
 Trustee Relief Act, 214, 301. 
 
536 INDEX or MATTER. 
 
 MASTER, costs of suit instituted on suggestion or recommendation of a, 80. 
 MEETING HOUSE, trustees of a, becoming disqualified and refusing to 
 
 retire, charged with costs, 298. 
 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, payment of costs by a, how enforced, 367. 
 MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT, 1862, costs of suits under, how taxed 
 
 288, II. 
 MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS, costs of suit under the limited liabUity 
 
 clauses of the, 76. 
 
 MERCHANTS, employed to assist the Court, fees to, 315 
 
 MINUTES, costs of speaking to, on, 94 ; moving to vary, ibid. 
 
 MISDESCRIPTION, 
 
 Plaintiff, of, may be the subject of a plea, 7. 
 And see Seocbity fob Costs. 
 
 MISJOINDER, no longer a ground for dismissal, 78, n. 
 
 MISREPRESENTATION, costs of suit for specific performance in case of, 
 
 184. 
 MISTAKE, 
 
 Costs omitted from decree by a, whether they can be obtained by an 
 
 application under liberty to apply reserved, 34. 
 Court, of the, plaintiff misled by, may dismiss his bill without costs, 51. 
 Parol evidence of, admitted in opposition to specific performance, 184. 
 Plaintiff may dismiss his bill without costs, in case of a, where, 50. 
 Registrar, of, costs occasioned by a, by whom to be borne, 39. 
 
 MISUNDERSTANDING, costs of suit for specific performance in case of, 
 184. 
 
 MONTH, meaning of, in Attornies and Solicitors Act, and how to be calcu- 
 lated, 305, n. 
 
 MORTGAGE DEEDS, costs incurred respecting the, by whom to be borne, 
 
 167. 
 MORTGAGEE, 
 
 Accounting party, may be charged with costs as an, 109, 163. 
 
 Actions by or against, costs of, where allowed to, and as against whom, 
 
 169, 170. 
 Administration suit instituted by, costs of, payable in what order, 132. 
 Administration Suit, entitled to prove in an, for full amount of debt, 133. 
 Assignees from, before suit, costs of, 166, 167 ; pendente lite, 167, 168. 
 Claiming balance by answer when none due, pays costs, or not allowed 
 
 any, 163 ; secus, if he merely claims more than is due, ibid. 
 Expenses, what allowed to, in settling accounts with mortgagor, 168, scg. ; 
 
 inquiry as to, not of course, but case for, must be stated on bill, 170. 
 First, entitled to costs of taking transfer of second mortgage pending suit, 
 
 168. 
 Fraud and oppression by, costs of suit to be relieved against, 164, 165. 
 Losing the title deeds, costs of, 161, 162. 
 Mortgage deed, where allowed costs of preparing the, 170. 
 Overpaid when bill filed, pays costs, 162, 163 ; «ecMS, if decree made before 
 
 overpayment discovered, ibid. 
 Paid off, not bound to transfer to nominee of mortgagor, if with notice of 
 
 an equitable claim, 168. 
 Possession, in, refusing to account pays costs, 163; expenses allowed to, 
 
 168, seq. 
 Purchase monies of lands compulsorily taken, costs of service on, of, 
 
 and appearance of, on petition to deal .with, where allowed against the 
 
 company, 200. 
 
INDEX OV MATTER. 537 
 
 UOUTAGE'E— continued. 
 
 Resisting right to redeem, costs where disallowed to, or to he horne hy, 16 1 . 
 
 Retaining deeds on redemption, must covenant at his own expense for pro- 
 duction, 167. 
 
 Sale, consenting to a, in an administration suit, entitled to costs in what 
 order, 134, 135, 158, and see Addenda ; in a puisne incumhrancer's 
 suit, 158 ; in foreclosure suit, ibid. 
 
 Sale, costs of suit for, by, 159, 160. 
 
 Sale and administration, costs of suit for, hy, 133, I S4. 
 
 Solicitor, what costs allowed to, see Solicitor. 
 
 Solicitor has no lien on papers delivered to him as, 39 1. 
 
 Stop order, where allowed costs of obtaining, 47- 
 
 Tender of principal, interest, and costs, refusing to accept, pays costs, 163. 
 
 Transfer by, costs of, where allowed against mortgagor, 168; where 
 against Railway Company, when lands have been taken compulsorily, 
 200,201. 
 
 Trustee, may be charged as a, where power of sale exercised, 159. 
 
 Trustee for, costs of, as defendant in foreclosure suit, allowed against 
 mortgagor, 166. 
 
 Trust for sale of equity of redemption, availing himself of, costs, 159. 
 
 And see Fokecxosore, Redemption. 
 
 MORTGAGEE, EQUITABLE, 
 
 Action at law against, not allowed costs of defending, 170. 
 
 Assignees in bankruptcy of mortgagor, entitled to costs against, in equity, 
 
 156; secus, in bankruptcy, if no memorandum, ibid. 
 Conveyance of legal estate to, costs of, by whom to be borne, 151, 157. 
 Mortgagor, entitled to costs as against the, 156. 
 Remedy of, whether by sale or foreclosure, 160 
 
 MORTGAGOR, 
 
 Entitled on redemption to custody of all deeds relating to the mortgage, 
 
 or attested copies at mortgagee's expense, 167. 
 Mortgagee's solicitor's bills may be taxed by, as third party, 332, 333. 
 
 MORTGAGOR AND MORTGAGEE, 
 Costs of suits between, 155 to 172. 
 And see Forecxosube, REDEaiPTioN. 
 
 MOTION, ^ ^ V ■ . • 
 
 Bad faith of respondent, occasioned by, costs of, 36 ; order obtamed in, 
 costs of, to discharge, 40. 
 
 Bill filed without authority, notice of, tj dismiss a, should not be served 
 on defendants, 61. 
 
 Death of plaintiff after giving notice of, costs occasioned by, how to be 
 borne, 42. ^ . . 
 
 Entitled in several causes, where costs of, may be set off in one, 45. 
 
 Indulgence, party seeking a, pays costs of, 34, 35. 
 
 Injunction, for a, granted, defendant's costs of, are costs in cause on bill 
 dismissed, 32 ; standing over, ibid., but see Addenda. 
 
 Notice of, costs may be given though not asked for by the, 31 ; but not 
 unless respondent appears, ibid. 
 
 Notice of, to discharge irregular order need not mention grounds of ir- 
 regularity, 40. _ • , J . 
 
 Parties not served with notice of, but appearing on, where entitled to 
 
 costs, 45. , . ,. • ^ c 
 
 Parties properly appearing on a, do not lose their costs by opposing, 45. 
 Parties served with notice of, unnecessarily appearing, or unnecessarily 
 
 served with notice of, and appearing, where entitled to costs, 42, 43, 61, 
 
 216. 
 
538 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 MOTION— confiHMcd 
 
 Principal part of the, moving party failing in the, pays fall costs, 45. 
 Pro forma, party making a, should inform the other side under penalty 
 
 of costs, 42. 
 Pro inieresse suo, stranger making a, pays costs, 35. 
 Transfer, for, of purchase money paid in by public company, to credit of 
 
 cause, on whom notice of, to be served, 44, 197, 198. 
 
 MOTIONS, 
 
 Abandoned, what are treated as, 41, 42 ; costs of, to be taxed, 41 ; applica- 
 tion for costs of, how and when to be made, 42 ; costs of, must be paid 
 before motion renewed, ibid. ; party' in contempt cannot apply for costs 
 of, ibid. 368. 
 
 Advancement of cause, for, costs of, 34. 
 
 Contempt, to commit for, costs of, 37, 38. 
 
 Costs of. Sir J. Leach's rules as to, 31,32; followed where order silent as 
 to costs, 32. 
 
 Default of moving party, occasioned by, costs of, 34, 35. 
 
 Default of respondent, occasioned by, costs of, 35 to 38 ; where order has 
 been complied with, before the motion is brought on, 36. 
 
 Dismiss, to, for want of prosecution, costs of, 36, 37 ; may be obtained, 
 though plaintiff files replication or amends, unless he tender.-, full costs, 
 36 ; where refused with costs, 37. 
 
 Ex parte, order for payment of costs on, irregular, 31. 
 
 ' Four -day order,' for, costs of, 36. 
 
 Granted, costs of, not generally reserved, 33. 
 
 Gross sum, where allowed in lieu of taxed costs of, 46. 
 
 Irregular, costs of, 38 ; and see Jurisdiction. 
 
 Irregular order, to enforce an, costs of, 39 ; to discharge, 39, 40 ; where 
 irregularity occurs through Registrar's mistake, 39 ; and see Ibreou- 
 LARiTY, Irregular Order. 
 
 Irregularly filed document, to remove a, from file, costs of, 39. 
 
 New trial, for a, costs of, how to be borne, 70. 
 
 Ordered to stand over, whether costs of, arc costs in the cause, if plaintiff 
 dismisses his own bill, 32. 
 
 Pending, included in costs of demurrer allowed, 22. 
 
 Purchaser, by, costs of what, allowed, 45, 271, 272. 
 
 Receivers, relating to. costs of, 276, 277. 
 
 Refused, costs of, may be made costs in the cause, 34. 
 
 Reserved imtil the hearing, where costs of, are, 33, 34 ; ought not to be 
 ultimately given to unsuccessful party, 33 ; will be lost it' bill dismissed 
 before hearing, ibid. ; how obviated, ibid. ; not comprised in general reser- 
 vation of costs of suit at hearing, unless expressly mentioned, 33, 65. 
 
 Stay proceedings under decree, to, pending appeal, costs of, 35. 
 
 Two, made, where only one necessary, what costs allowed, 46. 
 
 NEGOTIATIONS, before suit, effect of, on costs of suit, 73, 185. 
 
 NEW TRIAL.— See Issues, Motions. 
 
 NEXT FRIEND, 
 
 Infant, of, liability of, to costs, 248, 254 ; entitled to reimbursement out of 
 infant's estate, where, 249, 250, 253 ; has no lien on funds or estate 
 recovered in the suit, 249; allowed costs as between solicitor and client, 
 but not as of right, 249 ; inquiry whether the suit is for the infant's 
 benefit, not directed on the application of the, 250 ; deceased, when 
 infant comes of age and repudiates suit, costs cannot be recovered from 
 the estate of, 253; whether, may sue in forma pauperis, 254; death of, 
 order niiide on, 253, h. ; changed, costs, 254; may be a ' party chargeable' 
 under Attornies and Solicitors Act, 312 ; and see Infant, Solicitor. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 539 
 
 NEXT FRIEI^D— continued. 
 
 Married woman, of, becoming insolvent, order made in case of, 258, 250 ; 
 chan.^ed, 9 ; death of, order made on, 259; liable for injurious charges 
 against husband in petition under Trustee Acts, 260; must give security 
 for costs, if poor, 79; and see Makkied Woman. 
 New, liable to costs from commencement, 86. 
 Solicitor has no Hen on papers delivered to him as, 391. 
 NEXT OF KIN, 
 
 Charity cases, costs of, in, 247. 
 
 Insolvent estate, not allowed costs out of an, 136. 
 
 Plaintiffs unsuccessfully claiming to be, may have costs out of the estate, 
 
 115. 
 Proving their title in chambers, costs of, how to be borne, 124, 125. 
 Residue, bill by, claiming the, against the executors, dismissed without 
 costs, 246. 
 NOTICE, solicitor's lien on money or costs, payable to client, may be enforced 
 
 by, 397, 399. 
 NOTICE OF MOTION.— See Motion. 
 
 OBSERVATIONS.— See Counsel. 
 
 OFFICER 
 
 Abroad, on the public service, not required to give security for costs, 4. 
 On half pay, not allowed to sue in forma pauperis, 263. 
 
 OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR, 
 
 Company's former solicitor has a lien on papers as against the, 393. 
 
 Costs, charges, and expenses allowed to, 225, 226. 
 
 "SVhere disallowed costs, 226. 
 
 Where costs ordered to be paid by, personally, 226. 
 OMISSION, of costs from decree, how repaired, 33, 93. 
 OPENING BIDDINGS.— See Biddings. 
 
 RDER, 
 
 41st of August, 1841-48. 
 Of 19 May, 1855 (in Bankruptcy) — 356. 
 Of 6 March, 1860, r. 13-349, 350. 
 Of 5 February, 1861, r. 16—149, n. 
 
 T. 19—30. 
 Of 2 August, 1864, r. 1—307, 321, 323, 330, 332, 334. 
 ORDER OF COURSE dates only from service, where, 36, ..., aii7. 
 ORDERS, CONSOLIDATED, 
 1. 1. 2—27, n. 
 „ T. 38—15. 
 IIL r. 4—341. 
 VII. r. 9—266, 267. 
 IX. —24. 
 „ r. 4—376. 
 „ r. 7—150. 
 „ 1. 12—36, n. 
 XH. rr. 2, 3—374. 
 „ r. 4—268. 
 „ y. 7—371. 
 XIV. r. 1—22. 
 „ r. 12—18. 
 „ r. 13—20. 
 „ rr. 14, 15, 17—23. 
 „ r. 16—19. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 CONSOLIDATED -continued. 
 
 XXm. r. 10—307. 
 
 „ r. 12—94. 
 
 „ r. 13—48. 
 
 XXVI. r. 1—46. 
 
 XXVIII. IT. 1, 2—363. 
 
 „ rr. 5, 6, 9—364 
 
 XXIX. 1. 1—364, 389. 
 
 „ rr. 2, 3 — 388. 
 
 „ rr. 6 to 13—377, seq., 389. 
 
 XXX. I. 2-372. 
 XXXI. r. 2—362. 
 
 „ r. 4—96. 
 
 XXXII. r.'4— 56. 
 
 XXXftl. r. 10—36, n. 
 
 XXXVI. rr. 7, 8—340, 341. 
 
 XL. rr. 1, 2—338. 
 
 „ r. 3 — 339. 
 
 „ r. 4 — 240, seq. 
 
 „ 1. 5—266. 
 
 „ r. 6—14. 
 
 „ r. 7—25. 
 
 „ r. 8— 26. 
 
 „ r. 9—29, 79, 205, 348. 
 
 „ r. 10 — see Addenda to p. 96. 
 
 „ 1.11—79,349. 
 
 „ I. 12—89. 
 
 „ J'. 13—28. 
 
 „ r. 14—16, 146. 
 
 „ r. 15 — see Addenda to p. 85. 
 
 „ r. 16—84, 151. 
 
 „ r. 17-365. 
 
 „ i. 18—349. 
 
 „ 1. 20—351. 
 
 „ r. 21—63. 
 
 „ r. 22—64. 
 
 „ r. 23—41. 
 
 „ r. 24—96, 128. 
 
 „ I. 25—339. 
 
 „ r. 26— 342. 
 
 „ r. 27—343. 
 
 „ r. 28—95, 127. 
 
 „ r. 29—95, 355. 
 
 „ r. 30—355, 356. 
 
 „ 1. 31—95. 
 
 „ 1. 32—1, 350, 353. 
 
 „ rr 33, 34—346. 
 
 „ r. 35—345, 346. 
 
 „ r. 36—346. 
 
 „ r. 37—46. 
 
 „ r. 39—340. 
 
 „ r. 40—344. 
 
 XLI. r. 6—212. 
 
 ORDINARY, costs of service on, of, and of his appearance on petition for in- 
 vestment of purchase monies, ■whether allowed against the company, 202 
 
 OVERCHARGES, 
 
 Objections to liability as regards particular items, not equivalent to, 
 328, 329. 
 
INDEX OF MATTEIJ. 541 
 
 OVERCHARGES— conhnHerf. 
 
 Onus of proving, lies on petitioner, 328. 
 
 Special application to tax, where sufficient grounds for a, 320, 321, 328 
 
 seq. ; snould be proved on a, as well as pressure, 326. ' ' 
 
 Specific items of, should be stated in the petition, 328 ; secus, if solicitor 
 
 refuses to produce the bill, 328, 329. 
 Taxation by cestui-que-trust, on, what, must be shown, 334. 
 OUTLAW, not a 'party chargeable,' under Attornies and Solicitors Act, 312. 
 
 PAPERS. — See Solicitok's Lien. 
 
 PARISH, costs of one, formed out of another, how provided for, 144. 
 
 PARTICEPS CRIMINIS, where plaintiff is, decree made without costs, ?5. 
 
 PARTIES, 
 
 Formal, costs of, 84, 85. 
 
 Objection for want of, should be taken by answer, fi3 ; or, if no answer, 
 by afiidavit, 64. 
 
 Plaintiff not justified in making persons, because other defendants object 
 for want of them, 84. 
 
 Unnecessary, entitled to costs from plaintiff, where, 83, 84, 238. 
 
 And see Dependants. 
 
 PARTITION, SUITS FOR, 
 
 Account of rents and profits, where bill also prays, 173. 
 
 Costs of, how disposed of, 172. 
 
 Defendant setting up agreement as a bar to partition, or disputing plain- 
 tiff's title, to pay costs thereby occasioned, 173 ; but costs of an inquiry, 
 where plaintiff was heir-at-law, were allowed, ibid. 
 
 Incumbrancers on one share, costs of, how to be borne, 174. 
 
 Infants, costs of, may be charged on their shares, 173 ; which may be sold 
 for the purpose of raising them, 174. 
 
 Married women, costs of, how provided for in, see Addenda to p. 174. 
 
 Purchasers of plaintiff's undivided share, costs of, in, 174. 
 
 Tenant for life, costs of, in, 174. 
 
 Tenant in tail, costs of, in, 174. 
 
 Where no reference or commission, no costs given, 173. 
 PARTNERSHIP, 
 
 Dissolution of, is a discharge of the client by the solicitors, 395 ; effect of, 
 on retainer, 280; on solicitor's lien, 395. 
 
 Suits for dissolution of, costs of, 175. 
 
 PARTY AND PARTY, taxation of costs as between, 1, 288, n. 
 ' PARTY CHARGEABLE,' under Attornies and Solicitors Act, who may 
 be a, 311, 312. 
 
 ' PATENT LAW AMENDMENT ACT,' 1852, costs under,how taxed, 288,n. 
 PAUPER, 
 
 Appeal, may, without deposit, where, 97 ; or to House of Lords, without 
 
 recognisance, ibid. 
 Bill, cannot dismiss his own, ex parte, without costs, 49, 267. 
 Contempt by, costs of, how discharged, 269, 374. 
 Costs payable to, to be taxed as dives costs, 266. 
 Defendant, solicitor and counsel assigned to, where, 268. 
 Dispaupered, may be, under what circumstances, 265, 206 ; but may be 
 
 re-admitted to sue or defend in forma pauperis, 265. 
 Liability of, for costs of proceedings before order to sue or defend in forma 
 
 pauperis obtained, 267. 
 Prisoner, in custody for non-payment of costs. Court has no jurisdiction 
 
 to discharge, 268. 
 
542 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 FAVPER—contmued. 
 
 Second suit by, stayed, until payment of costs of previous suit dismissed, 
 270. 
 
 And see In Forma Padpekis. 
 PAYMENT OF COSTS, where suspended pending appeal, 362, 363. 
 PAYMENT OF COSTS, HOW ENFORCED, 
 
 Clergyman, against a, 379, 380. 
 
 Corporation, against a, 367, 368. 
 
 Fund or estate, where payable out of, or charged upon, 385, 386. 
 
 House of Lords, in the, 386, 387. 
 
 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, under the, 210. 
 
 Member of parliament, against a, 367. 
 • Party and party, between, by subpoena, attachment, and sequestration, 363 
 to 377 ; as a judgment under 1 & 2 Vict. u. 110, 377 to 381 j by staying 
 further proceedings till costs already incurred are paid, 382, 383. 
 
 Peer, against a, 367. 
 
 Several modes at once, by, 362. 
 
 Solicitor and client, between, by action or suit, 388 ; by process of the 
 Court, 388 to 390 ; by writs of Ji. fa. or elegit, 389 ; by lien on the 
 papers of the client, 390 to 396 ; by lien on the funds recovered, 396 
 to 399 ; by a charge on the property recovered under 23 & 24 Vict. 
 c. 127, 399, 400. 
 
 "Winding-up Acts, under the, 22,5. 
 
 PAYMENTS by client, wliat to be allowed on taxation, under an order of 
 
 course, 317. 
 PEEK, 
 
 Answer of, may be read on question of costs, 85. 
 
 Payment of costs by, how enforced, 367. 
 
 Security for costs, not exempt from liability to give, 4. 
 
 PEERESS may sue in forma pauperis, 258. 
 
 PETITION, 
 
 Abandoned, respondent entitled to costs of, on producing his own affidavit 
 
 of having been served, 42. 
 Appeal, of, see Appeal, Petition of. 
 Gross sum may be allowed in lieu of taxed costs of, 46. 
 Parties properly appearing on, do not lose costs by opposition, 45. 
 Parties unnecessarily served with, and appearing, or properly served and 
 
 unnecessarily appearing, where entitled to costs, 43, 44, 198, 199 ; 
 
 under Trustee Relief Act, 216. 
 Payment out to party absolutely entitled, for, fixed sum allowed by Master 
 
 of the Rolls as costs of, 46. 
 Prayer of, costs may be given though not asked for by the, 31; but not 
 
 if respondent does not appear, ibid. 
 Purchase-monies of lands compulsorily taken, to deal with, on whom to 
 
 be served, 198 to 202. 
 Served on solicitor for two parties, without specifying for which, 45. 
 Tenant for life, by, for payment of income, costs of, how to be borne, in 
 
 administration suit, 134 ; under Trustee Relief Act, 218. 
 Trustee Relief Act, under, trustees should not present, 215; for payment 
 
 out of funds, costs of, payable out of what funds, 217 ; whether out df 
 
 income or capital, 218 ; respondent may be ordered to pay costs of, 
 
 219. 
 Winding-up, for, see Winding-up. 
 
 PETITION OF RIGHT.— See Attorney-General. 
 
 PETITIONER, security for costs, where liable to give, 11, 12; what sufficient 
 bond to be given by, for, 15. 
 
 PETITIONS, what costs allowed, where two presented, though one only neces- 
 sary, 46, 208, 218, 225. 
 
JXDEX OF MA'ITEE. 543 
 
 PLAINTIFF, 
 
 Deceased, proceedings in a fresh suit by repvLScntatives of a, may be 
 
 stayed till costs of first suit are paid, 382. 
 Unsuccessful, may have costs out of a fund or an estate, 67 ; but, qucere 
 whether from defendants personally ? 68. 
 PLEA, 
 
 xVllowed on argument, costs of, 19, 20 ; where liberty to amend is eiven 
 IS. J b > 
 
 Amended, allowed, costs of, 20. 
 
 Answer ordered to stand for, costs of, 18. 
 
 Evidence, established by, after issue joined, costs of, 20. 
 
 False, put in for purpose of delay, costs of, payable by solicitor, 284. 
 
 Misdescription of plaintiff may be the subject of a, 7. 
 
 Not set down, costs of, 23. 
 
 Overruled, taxed costs payable on, IS. 
 
 Submitted to. costs of, 20. 
 
 Time for setting down, 23, «. 
 
 PLE.\S, two, by same solicitor, what costs allowed, 20. 
 
 PO^ EUTY, not in general a ground for requiring security for costs, 9, 10. 
 
 PEESSLTRE, 
 
 Doctrine of, in cases of taxation, not to be extended, 327. 
 
 Not sufficient grounds for special application to tax solicitor's bill without 
 overcharges, 326. 
 
 What amounts to, by solicitor on client, 323 to 327. 
 
 PRINTED BILL, costs incurred in consequence of a, not having been filed, 
 376. 
 
 PRISONER. — See Attachment, Contempt, Pauper. 
 
 PRIVATE ACT, costs payable by company taking lands settled by a, 205. 
 
 PRO INTERESSE SUO, 
 
 A person may be examined, in forma pauperis, 26-t. 
 
 A stranger to the suit moving, pays costs, 45. 
 
 PROCATE, costs of, not comprised in ' costs, charges, and expenses,' 294. 
 PROCESS, 
 
 For payment of costs may be joint or several, where several ordered to 
 
 pay, 86, 362. 
 For went of answer, 371. 
 
 Messenger who has let prisoner go on an undertaking cannot use the, of 
 the Court, to enforce it, 376. 
 
 PRODtrCTION.— See Documents. 
 
 PROFESSIONAL MEN, what expenses allowed to, as witnesses, 29, 30. 
 
 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, what included in, 282. 
 
 PROFESSIONAL TRUSTEES, what costs allowed to, 294,295; and see 
 Solicitor. 
 
 PROLIXITY, in pleadings, costs of, disallowed, 348 ; instances of, ibid. 
 
 PROTEST, 
 
 Payment under, not alone a ground for taxation, 327. 
 
 Specific items objected to should be pointed out, on payment under, 327. 
 
 PUBLIC SERVICE, plaintiff abroad on the, not required to give security for , 
 costs, 4. 
 
 PURCHASER, 
 
 Cannot recover at law costs of suit for specific performance, where vendor 
 has no title, 180. 
 
544 INDEX or MATTER. 
 
 VUnCUkSKR— continued. 
 
 Death of, costs of suit for resale occasioned by, 187. 
 
 Partition suit, in, costs of, 1 74. 
 
 Resale, cannot recover from vendors at law costs of a, -where title is bad, 
 
 274. 
 And see Specific Pekfobmance. 
 
 PURCHASER UNDER DECREE, 
 
 Costs of, generally, 270 to 275. 
 
 Discharged, entitled to costs, charges, and expenses, 273, 274 ; by whom 
 to be borne, ibid. ; where the biddings are opened, 274, 275. 
 
 Making default in completion, to pay costs of resale, 274. 
 
 Motion to pay purchase money into court, costs of, not allowed to, 271 ; 
 to deal with purchase money, where entitled to costs of appearance on, 45, 
 271, 272 ; to substitute one, for another, costs of, 271. 
 
 And see Title, Refekence as to. 
 
 QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY, costs of service on the Governors of, and of 
 their appearance, where allowed against the Company under the Lands 
 Clauses Consolidation Act, 202. 
 
 QUEEN'S COUNSEL, costs of consultation with, on the frame of the bill, 
 allowed on taxation as between solicitor and client, 352. 
 
 QUEEN'S PRISON, abolished, 365. 
 
 REAL ESTATE, 
 
 Administration of, costs of suit for, where realty and personalty adminis- 
 tered in same suit, 117, 118 ; where realty only administered, 118 j or 
 
 there is no personal est>nte, see Addenda. 
 Charity, belonging to a, may be sold for payment of costs, 144, 145. 
 Decree of the court may be enforced as a charge on, 381. 
 Infant's, may be sold for payment of costs in an administration suit, 118; 
 
 in a partition suit, 173. 
 Investment of legacy in, costs of, how to be borne, 112. 
 Legacy charged on, costs of suit respecting a, 111. 
 Sale of, costs incurred in effecting a, come out of the proceeds of sale, 1 1 7 ; 
 
 but not in priority to mortgagee's principal and interest, 134, 158, and 
 
 see Addenda. 
 Solicitor has no lien on, for costs, 396 ; but may have a charge under, 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, 399, 400. 
 Tenant for life, where costs of, are charged on the inheritance in, the 
 
 Court will direct a sale, 386. 
 
 REBUILDING, whether costs of application to lay out purchase money in, 
 are payable by the company, 193, 194. 
 
 RECEIVER, 
 
 Costs, charges, and expenses, entitled to, 276 ; in priority to the costs of 
 
 an administration suit, 119, 272. 
 Costs ordered to be paid by a, there may be revivor for, 385. 
 Default, in, costs payable by, 277. 
 
 Interference with, costs occasioned by, how to be borne, 278. 
 Officer of the court, is an, and should not in general originate proceedings, 
 
 but may in special cases, 275, 276. 
 Petition to discharge a, costs of, 277 ; should not be served on receiver, 
 
 who will not be allowed costs if he appears, 44, 276. 
 Poundage, and expenses of passing accounts of, payable by tenant for life, 
 
 276 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 545 
 
 HECEIVEU— continued. 
 
 Proceedings ty, without leave of the Court, where costs of, allowed, 276, 
 
 277. 
 Suit for a, pending litigation respecting prohate, costs of, how and when 
 
 disposed of, 53. 
 Will, appointed by, a proper party to an administration suit, 277. 
 
 RECOGNIZANCES, 
 
 Entered into hy appellant to House of Lords, 97 ; or a substitute, ibid. ; but 
 not by Attorney-General or ofiBcer of the Crown, ibid. ; or one appealing 
 in forma pauperis, ibid. 
 
 Estreat of, how effected, 386, 387. 
 
 KECONYEYANCE, of mortgaged estate, costs of, in general, to be borne by 
 mortgagor, 170 ; from infant heir, 171 ; from lunatic mortgagee, ibid.; 
 from lunatic heir of mortgagee, ibid. 
 
 RECOVERY OF COSTS.— See Patjiext of Costs how enforckd. 
 
 ' RECTOR OF,' &e., suflBcient description of plaintiff, though not resident in 
 the parish, 6. 
 
 REDEJIPTION, SUIT FOR, 
 
 Appeal for costs will lie, where mortgagee refused costs of a, 105, 157. 
 
 Oyer-payment, where the bill alleges, costs are reserved, 162. 
 
 Plaintiff pays costs of a, though mortgagee is in possession and charged 
 with annual rests, 162 ; except where defendant resists the right to 
 redeem, 1 60 ; or there is a question of priority between two mortgagees, 
 161 ; or mortgagee has lost his deeds, 161, 162 ; or is overpaid, 162 ; 
 or in case of tender, 163, 164 ; or the bill is to be relieved against fraud 
 and oppression, 1 65. 
 
 Puisne incumbrancer, by, rule as to costs of a, 157, 158. 
 
 Tenant for life, by, costs of a, how to be borne, 161, 169. 
 
 Where the bill is filed to redeem two estates, and one only is redeemable, 
 costs payable by plaintiff, 162. 
 
 And see Moktgagee. 
 
 REFERENCE, as to title, see Title. 
 
 REFERENCE, in administration suit, as to propriety of purchase of lands 
 taken compulsorily, costs of, ordered to be paid by the company, 
 197. 
 
 REHEARING.— See Appeal. 
 
 REINVESTMENT, in land, costs of service of petition for, on proposed 
 vendor, not allowed against the company, 201. 
 
 RELATOR, 
 
 Information filed without the authority of the, though afterwards assented 
 to, taken off the file with costs against solicitor, 62, 141. 
 
 Security for costs, must give, if in poverty, 10. 
 
 Solicitor and client, costs as between, usually allowed to, in charity suits, 
 and in special case« full costs, charges, and expenses, 140, 141. 
 
 And see Charity Suits. 
 
 REMAINDERMEN, 
 
 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, under, where costs of service on, of 
 
 petition of tenant for life for investment, allowed against the company, 
 
 199. 
 Trustee Relief Act, under, costs of appearance of, on petition for payment 
 
 of income to tenant for life, how to be borne, 218. 
 
 REPLICATION, costs where .leave is given to withdraw, and amend, 25. 
 
 N N 
 
546 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 REPRESENTATION, 
 
 Deceased co-plaintiff, of, defendant entitled to, 86; duty of surviving 
 
 plaintiffs to take out, 56. 
 And see Administkation. 
 RESALE, 
 
 Costs of suit for,-on- death of purchaser, 187. 
 
 Purchaser cannot recover at law costs of a, from original vendor, where 
 ■ the' title is bad, 274. 
 RESETTLEMENT, after payment of purchase monies into court, the com- 
 pany not bound to pay the costs of an application for payment of divi- 
 dends, occasioned by a, 201 ; but see 193, n. 
 
 RESIDUARY LEGATEES, 
 
 Incumbering their shares, costs, 125. 
 
 Insolvent estate, entitled to costs out of a, 135; but not as between 
 solicitor and client, 136. 
 
 Not entitled of right to costs as between solicitor and client, 127. 
 
 Not necessary parties to creditor's suit, where there is a trust for payment 
 of debts, 83. 
 
 Proving their titles, costs of, how to be borne, 124, 125. 
 RESIDUE, 
 
 Apportionment of costs between different portions of, 110, 111. 
 
 Meaning of, 1 10. 
 
 And see Administration op Assets, Real Estate. 
 
 RESPONDENT See Appeals, Petition. 
 
 RETAINER.— See Solicitor. 
 
 REVERSIONS, SUITS TO SET ASIDE SALES, ETC., OF, 
 Assignees of the property, costs of, in, 177. 
 
 Costs of, may be given against defendant, though equity is inadequacy of 
 value only, 176, 177, and see Addenda ; where fraud is charged, 177. 
 Lapse of time, where bill is dismissed on the grounds of, alone, no costs, 177. 
 Redemption, costs of, not now awarded on the footing of, 175, 176. 
 REVIEW, bill of, party may bring a, in forma pauperis, 264. 
 REVIVOR, 
 
 Costs, for, none in general, 384 ; exceptions to rule, 384, 385. 
 Default of, in, defendant may dismiss bill with costs against surviving 
 co-plaintiffs, 56; whether representatives of deceased defendant may 
 dismiss bill, 57, 58; and with or without costs, ibid. 
 Discovery, of suits for, 161. 
 Security for costs may be obtained on, though the right to is waived as 
 
 against original plaintiff, 14. 
 Taxation between solicitor and client, of proceedings on, 345. 
 ROMII ^T'S (SIR S.) ACT, 
 
 Court may dismiss petition under, with costs, 145. 
 And see Charity Suits. 
 
 SALE, 
 
 After final decree, not pendente lite, 381. 
 
 Costs of, how to be borne, and in what order, in administration suits, 
 117, 134; in mortgagee's suit, 158, 160 ; and see Addenda to p. 134. 
 
 Costs of suit for a, by legal mortgagee, 134, 169 ; by equitable mort- 
 gagee, 160. 
 
 Where costs are charged upon an estate, Court may direct a, for the pur- 
 pose of raising them, in the case of infants, 118, 173, 174; for a tenant 
 for life, 386 ; in charity suits, 144, 145. 
 
 And see Administration op Assets, Suits for; Foreclosure, 
 Mortgagee. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 547 
 
 SALE BY THE COUET.— See Puiichaser bnder Deckee, Title. 
 SCALES OF COSTS, as to higher and lower, 155, 401. 
 SCANDAL, costs occasioned hy, by whom to be borne, 28 ; to be taxed in 
 some cases as between solicitor and client, 2, 28. 
 
 SCIENTIFIC PERSONS, employed to assist the Court, fees to, 351. 
 SEAFARING MAN, not exempted from giving security foT costs, 4. 
 SECURITY, 
 
 Client, given by, to solicitor, whether equivalent to payment for purposes 
 of taxation, 322. 
 
 Solicitor's lien, superseded by taking, 396. 
 SECURITY FOR COSTS, 
 
 Action at law, in an, brought under direction of this Court, where appli- 
 cation for, should be made, 5. 
 
 Action at law, plaintiff in suit to restrain an, exempted from giving, 12. 
 
 Ambassador's servant, required from, but, semble, not ambassador him- 
 self, 5. 
 
 Amend, where leave is given to, by leaving out co-plaintiffs, required, 11. 
 
 Amended bill, whether, can be required on, where right to, on original 
 bill, waived, 14. 
 
 Amount, and form of, 14, 15. • 
 
 Assignees of bankrupt made defendants by supplemental bill, may re- 
 quire, though bankrupt has obtained, 16. 
 
 Bond for, how, and to whom to be given, 15; how enforced, 17. 
 
 Cross suit, plaintiff in, exempted from giving, 12, 13; but not as against 
 defendants not parties to original suit, 12 ; what suits within the rule, 
 12, 13. 
 
 Default, where plaintiff makes, in giving, practice, 1 7. 
 
 Defendants, where required from, 1 1 ; each of, entitled to separate secu- 
 rity, where, 16. 
 
 Demur, defendant may, without prejudice to his right to, 13. 
 
 Executors, &c., resident abroad must give, 5. 
 
 Foreigner, temporarily residing in this country, not required from, 5. 
 
 Limited company, where and what required from, 10, 11. 
 
 Money, plaintiff may pay into court, instead of giving, 1 5. 
 
 Next friend of married woman, where required from, 7 to 9, 257 ; of 
 infants, ibid. ; of married woman or infants, changed, what, and where 
 required from former one, 9. 
 
 Order for, discharged on plaintiff coming within the jurisdiction, 5 ; may 
 be obtained in chambers, 16 ; form of, 14; effect of, 16. 
 
 Peer, resident abroad, required from, 4. 
 
 Petitioner, where requii-ed from, 12 ; for taxation, what, 12. 
 
 Plaintiff, where required from, out of the jurisdiction, 3 to 5 ; intending 
 to go abroad, not, 4 ; mis-described on the bill, where, 5 to 7 • keeping 
 out of the way, or who cannot be found, 6, 7 ; changiug his abude, 7. 
 
 Poverty, on account of, not in general required from plaintiff, 9, 10; from 
 next friend of married woman, 8 ; from relator in a charity informa- 
 tion, 10. 
 
 Public service, plaintiff abroad on the, not required from, 4. 
 
 Revivor of suit, on, defendant may have, though waived against original 
 plaintiff, 14. 
 
 Seafaring man, no exemption in favour of, 4. 
 
 Solicitor, undertaking by, not sufficient, 15. 
 
 Solicitors, defendant should communicate with, before applying for, if 
 plaintiff cannot be found, 6. 
 
 Sureties for, who may be, 15; dyingor becoming bankrupt, practice,! 5, 16. 
 
 Trustee, where obtained by, from cestuis-que-trust, 11. 
 
 Waiver of right to, 13, 14. 
 
 N N 2 
 
548 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 SEQUESTRARI FACIAS DE BONIS ECCLESIASTICIS, CoDsolidated 
 
 Orders relating to writs of, 379, 380. 
 SEQUESTRATION, 
 
 Commission of, for recovery of costs, -where granted,, between party and 
 
 party, 366 and note ; against a peer or member of Parliament, 367 ; 
 
 between solicitor and client, 388 ; against a corporation, how issued, and 
 
 where made absolute, 367, 368. 
 Discharge of prisoner does not get rid of a, 367. 
 Party proceeding by writ of^. fa. may also have a, 362. 
 Proceedings under a commission of, 367. 
 Substituted service of order for a commission of, 367. 
 
 SERJEANT AT ARMS, 
 
 Allowing prisoner to escape, order for a second, may be had, 366, 367. 
 Order for a, in what case obtained, between party and party, 366 ; between 
 
 solicitor and client, 388 ; may be revived, where, 367 ; not discharged 
 
 without payment of the fees of the, 372. 
 Keturn of the, proceedings on, 366 ; should be filed. Hid. 
 
 SERVICE, 
 
 Costs of, what, allowed on taxation, 350. 
 And see Substituted Service. 
 
 SET OFF, 
 
 Administration suits, in, of costs awarded to debtors to the estate, 127, 128, 
 
 398 ; where, of costs of bankrupt executor, ibid., 240. 
 Bankruptcy, in, none of untaxed costs against debts, 240. 
 Contempt, person in, may move for a, of costs, 368. 
 Costs, of, against costs, or against money payable under the same order, 92, 
 
 153 ; or under different orders in the same suit, 92 ; or in two suits, 93 ; 
 
 but not of costs in equity against costs at law, ibid. 
 Cross suit, of costs of, against costs coming to the defendant out of a fund in 
 
 original suit, 384. 
 Deposit cannot be, against costs of purchaser's bill dismissed with costs, 188. 
 Exceptions allowed and disallowed, of costs of, 27, 28, and see Addenda. 
 Interpleader suits, in, 153. 
 
 Solicitor's lien does notinterfere with any right of, between the parties, 397. 
 Unascertained amount, none of costs against a sum due on an, 92. 
 
 SETTLED FUND, whether trustee entitled to pay a, into court, 215. 
 
 SETTLEMENT, solicitor's lien on a, for costs of preparing it, 391. 
 
 SETTLEMENT, EQUITY TO A.— See Makkied Woman. 
 
 SETTLEMENT, FRAUDULENT, costs of suit to set aside, by assignees 
 in bankruptcy, 255, 289 ; by purchaser, ibid. 
 
 SEVERING, 
 
 Husband and wife, 88, 262. 
 
 Mortgagor and mortgagee, 88. 
 
 Parties in the same interest, 87, 88. 
 
 Residence in distant parts of the country, where a sufficient reason for, 88. 
 
 Trustees, and other persons having a joint fiduciary interest, 88. 
 
 Trustee and cestuis-que-trust, as defendants, 88 ; as plaintiffs, 89. 
 SHERIFF, 
 
 Bail, improperly taking, under an attachment, 376. 
 
 Letting prisoners go, or disobeying writ of habeas corpus, or making 
 no return, may be committed, 375 ; or may be made answerable in 
 damages, 38, 375, 376. 
 
 SHORT CAUSE, struck out of the paper, in what case defendants entitled 
 
 to costs of the day, 63. 
 SHORTHAND WRITERS, where costs of, allowed on taxation, 356. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 549 
 
 SOLICITOR, 
 
 Accouut, client may file a bill for an, against a, 330 ; costs, 107, 360; 
 
 but not solicitor against client, 388. 
 Action by, against client, costs of, 360; brought after order for taxation 
 
 is a contempt, 389. 
 Agent not being a, disallowed all items except disbursements, 90, 344. 
 Agreement of, -with client, taxing master may have regard to, but a special 
 
 application to tax proper in case of an, 313. 
 Agreement by, to take a gross sura for past costs not void, 314; secus, as 
 
 to future costs, ibid. ; to allow interest on untaxed bills of costs, where 
 
 supported, 390. 
 Bankrupt, liability of assignees of, for costs of taxation, 361. 
 Cestui-que-trust, of, and trustee, extent of lien as between, 393. 
 Commission, beyond taxed costs, disallowed to, 314. 
 Company, of a, being wound up, disallowed costs of business ultra vires of 
 
 company, out of assets, 228, 283 ; right of, to retain papers against 
 
 ofBcial liquidator, 393. 
 Confirmation by client, bill to set aside a sale to, dismissed without costs 
 
 on the grounds of, 278. 
 Consultation, no charge for attendance at a, allowed to, where no fee is 
 
 paid to counsel, 354. 
 Costs of suit against a, 278. 
 Custody, in, for debt, incapable of practising, and considered as having 
 
 discharged himself, 395. 
 Deceased, liability of representatives of, for costs of taxation, 361. 
 Delivery up of papers by, costs of motion for, 36. 
 Discharge of, by client, what is a, 394 ; by himself, 395. 
 Fees to, rules and regulations as to, App. I. 
 Fraud, may be made a party to a suit, in case of, for mere purpose of 
 
 praying costs against him, 278 ; charged with, refused costs though bill 
 
 dismissed, where, 73, 74, 278; bill of costs of, may always be opened in 
 
 case of, 329. 
 Fund, costs payable out of a, ordered to be paid to the, directly, 2, 89 ; 
 
 and see Solicitor's Lien. 
 Interest, or profits, cannot be charged with, under common order for taxa- 
 tion, 317 ; on bills of costs, where recoverable by, 389, 390. 
 Interpleader suit, in, ordered to pay costs in case of collusion, 154. 
 Lapse of time, bill against a, dismissed on grounds of, alone, without costs, 
 
 278. 
 Lien of. see Solicitor's Lien. 
 Married woman, of, liability of separate estate to, 259; to be enforced by 
 
 bill in equity, 388. 
 Monies out of pocket, entitled to be allowed, 318. 
 Monies paid to, by client, for specific purpose, to be considered with 
 
 reference to costs of taxation, 359. 
 Mortgagee, costs of preparing mortgage deed not covered by security to, 
 
 170; acting for himself, not allowed profit costs against mortgagor, 
 
 282 ; taxation how directed in that case, ibid. 
 Mortgagee's, and mortgagor, extent of lien as between, 392. 
 Negligence, may be made responsible for, on bill, 279; or, semble, in the 
 
 original proceedings under the general jurisdiction, 285 ; a good 
 
 defence to a claim by a, as a creditor in administration suit, 286. 
 New, paying off former one acquires no lien, 392, 398 ; has priority of 
 
 lien on funds over former one, 398. 
 Next friend, of, may have a charge on the property recovered under 
 
 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, 249, 400. 
 Non-attendance of, in chambers, costs occasioned by, how to be borne, 96. 
 Offer by, to pay disputed items, effect of, on taxation, 329. 
 
550 INDEX OF MATTEE. 
 
 SOLICITOR— conimaerf. 
 
 Order to change, is prima facie a discharge by the client, 394. 
 
 Pauper, of, to take no remuneration, 266. 
 
 Payment by client to, of amount of bills of costs, how enforced, 388 to 
 400 ; of a gross sum, effect of, on right to taxation, 322, 329. 
 
 Personally liable for costs, of proceedings instituted without authority, 
 60, 283; where proceedings are irregular, 38, 283; or are not ioji x 
 fide, 284; in cases of malfeasance by, 284 ; of scandal, 28; of negli- 
 gence, 96, 285, 286; on personal undertaking, 286; or where the 
 solicitor has guaranteed his client against costs, 287. 
 
 Pressure by, on client, what amounts to, 323 to 327. 
 
 Purchaser, disclaiming to hold as, and claiming only as mortgagee, 
 allowed costs from date of the answer, see Addenda to p. 278. 
 
 Refusing to consent to common order for taxation, pays costs of special 
 application, 312. 
 
 Retainer, acting without a, may have his costs out of funds recovered, 398. 
 
 Retainer of, what is sufficient, 62 ; effect of dissolution of partnership on, 
 280 ; taxing master cannot go into question of, under common order, 318. 
 
 Retainer by, of amount of bill, not equivalent to payment, as respects the 
 right to taxation, 322. 
 
 Retention of bill by, after payment, effect of, on right to taxation, 329. 
 
 Retiring from suit, postponed to successor, 89, 398. 
 
 Security, whether giving, to, is equivalent to payment fir purposes of 
 taxation, 322. 
 
 Several defendants, appearing for, rule as to costs of, 89. 
 
 Term fee, where allowed to, 357. 
 
 Travelling expenses, where allowed to a, 272,346, 357; on what evidence, 
 346. 
 
 Trustee, acting for himself, allowed costs out of pocket only, 279 ; and 
 no special directions for taxation necessary, 281 ; rule applies to con- 
 structive trustee, 279 ; or where solicitor is a member of a firm, 280; 
 but he may employ his partner, ibid. ; and allowed the expenses of a 
 town agent, ibid. 
 
 Acting for himself and co-trustees, where allowed profit costs, 280. 
 Acting for cestuis-qui-trust, 281. 
 
 May make special contract for costs, 281 ; what words sufficient to 
 give full costs to, 282; or Court may give remuneration to a, ibid. 
 
 Trustees, of, has no lien on trust property, 260 ; but may have on papers 
 to extent of trustees' lien on the funds, 393. 
 
 Undertaking by, for payment of costs, 286 ; how enforced, 287 ; not a 
 sufficient security for costs, 1 5. 
 
 To refund, at time of payment, effect of, on right to taxation, 329. 
 To appear, not equivalent to service of a subpoena, 95. 
 
 Unprofessional items, where entitled to credit for, 317, 318; not to be 
 taken into account with reference to costs of taxation, 360. 
 
 And see Bills of Costs, Solicitors, Taxation. 
 
 SOLICITOR TO THE SUITORS' FUND, 
 
 Guardian ad litem to infant or lunatic, costs of, how to be borne, 240; 
 
 cannot be paid out of the Suitors' Fee Fund, ibid. 
 Prison, to visit quarterly, and report to the Lord Chancellor, 268, 269. 
 Several capacities, appearing in the same suit in, entitled to full costs, 
 
 89, 240. 
 And see Suitors' Fee Fund. 
 
 SOLICITOR TO THE TREASURY, 
 
 Administration, taking oat, on behalf of the Crown, costs of, 236 ; 
 
 where letters of administration are revoked, ibid. 
 Appealing unsuccessfully against a decree finding certain persons to be 
 
 next of kin, cannot have costs, 236. 
 
INDEX or MATTER. 551 
 
 SOLICITOR AND CLIENT, agreements between, see SoLiciTon. 
 
 SOLICITOR AND CLIENT, COSTS AS BETWEEN, 
 
 Charity cases, frequently allowed in, but no rule to that effect, 139, 140, 
 
 247 ; usually allowed to relator, 141. 
 Creditor's suit, where plaintiff in a, entitled to, 136. 
 Definition of, 1. 
 
 Executors, &c., allowed, where, 2, 1 19, 288, 290, 
 Heir at law, allowed to, where real estate exhausted by creditors, 135. 
 Husband, bankrupt, have been allowed to, in suit between wife and as- 
 signees, 239. 
 Interpleader suit, not allowed to plaintiff in an, 155. 
 Legatee's suit, where plaintiff in a, entitled to, 1 35. 
 Merchandise Marks Act, 1862, under the, 288, n. 
 Next friend of infant, allowed to, though not of right, 249. 
 Patent Law Amendment Act, 1852, under the, 288, n. 
 Residuary legatees not entitled to, 127 ; though estate is insolvent, 136. 
 Scandal, awarded in cases of, 2, 28. 
 
 Solicitor to pay, where bill filed without authority, 60, 61. 
 Suit, of, do not include costs of rehearings, 104, 294. 
 Trustee entitled to, 2, 290; though a bankrupt, 220 ; not under a void 
 instrument, 290, n.; or where dismissed with costs, 293. 
 
 SOLICITOR'S LIEN, 
 
 Funds, or costs recovered in the suit, on, nature and extent of, 396, 397 ; 
 how enforced, z'Jzd. ; priority of, 397; not allowed to interfere with a 
 right of set-off, or a compromise, 397 ; solicitor may have, though acting 
 without a retainer, 280, 398 ; not discharged by taking client in execu- 
 tion, 398 ; nor by client's death, 399; effect of discharge or retirement 
 of solicitor on, 398. 
 
 Papers of the client, on the, nature and extent of, 390, 391; maybe 
 assigned, 392; against whom valid, 392, 393; does not protect solicitor 
 from production of a deed as witness, 30, 393 ; effect of change of 
 solicitors on, 394, 395 ; of dissolution of partnership, or alterations in 
 the firm, 395 ; superseded by express security, 396 ; where production 
 in a suit may be enforced, notwithstanding the, 391, 392. 
 
 Real estate, none on, 396. 
 
 SOLICITORS, 
 
 Dissolution of partnership between, a discharge of client, 395; effect of, 
 
 on retainer, 280; on lien, 395. 
 Firm of, how costs directed to be paid to a, 90. 
 
 Firms of, two, may arrange for conduct of each other's trust business, 280. 
 General jurisdiction of the,Court over, 285, 287. 
 And see Somcitor. 
 
 SPECIAL CASE, costs of a, how to be borne, 223, 224; a question should be 
 
 asked as to the, 223. 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE SUITS, 
 
 Compensation, where specific performance with, is sought, 185, 186. 
 Contract where the question is one affecting the, 183 to 186; bill may be 
 
 dismissed, and with costs, on grounds not sufficient to cancel the 
 
 agreement, 184; person not a party to the, not a proper party to, 188 j 
 
 plaintiff cannot introduce a parol variation into the, though omitted 
 
 by fraud, 185. 
 Conveyance, where there is a fair doubt on a point of, no coats, 177. 
 Deposit cannot be set off against costs, but refusal to return the deposit 
 
 may affect the costs, 188. 
 Interest, where the question is as to the payment of, costs, 186. 
 Objections to title argued in chambers and afterwards abandoned, costs 
 
 of, how to be borne, 179. 
 
552 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE STJITS— continued. 
 
 Occasioned by vendor dying intestate leaving an infant heir, costs of, how 
 
 to be borne, 186; or becoming lunatic, ibid. ; or devising to an infant, 
 
 186, 187; are 'costs occasioned by adverse litigation,' 187, 192, n. 
 Parol agreement, defendant disallowed costs of setting up the Statute of 
 
 Frauds to a, where, 185. 
 Parol evidence, admitted in opposition to specific performance, 184; if 
 
 decree is made according to the, introduced by defendant, the plaintiff 
 
 pays costs, 185. 
 Possession, purchaser taking, waives the title, where, 183. 
 Principle of, as to costs, where applicable to a special case, 224. 
 Public company not entitled to costs of, where they might have proceeded 
 
 under their act, 188. 
 Purchaser, waiving objections, where charged with costs of investigation 
 
 of title in, 180. 
 Purchaser's bill, where vendor has no title, dismissed without costs, 
 
 179, 180. 
 Third party, in a case of a claim by a, no costs, 179; where concurrence 
 
 of a, is required to make a good title, ibid. 
 Title, where question is one of, and title is good, costs, 178 ; where title 
 
 is bad or doubtful, 178, seq. ; but defect is known to the purchaser 
 
 before suit, 180. 
 Title deeds, where the, are burnt before the title is accepted, vendor's 
 
 bill, dismissed with costs, 178. 
 Vendor pays costs of, up to time when a good title is first shown, except 
 
 those occasioned by purchaser's unsuccessful objections, 181; excep- 
 tions to the rule, 182; and vendor may have all the costs, though 
 
 inquiry directed when a good title first shown, 183. 
 Undervalue, without fraud, contract executed without costs in case of, 
 
 184. 
 Waiver of title, plaintiff unsuccessfully insisting on, but having good 
 
 title, no costs, 183. ' 
 
 And see Purchaser. 
 
 SPOLIATION OF WILL, heir pays costs where guilty of, 245. 
 
 STAKEHOLDER, costs of defendant in position of a, 155. 
 
 STAMPS, as to, generally, 402, n., 429. 
 
 STAMP FEE, whether the, can he remitted on order to sue in forma 
 pauperis, 267. 
 
 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, solicitor's lien not barred by, 397. 
 
 STATUTES, 
 
 11 Hen. 7. c. 12 (Paupers), 263. 
 43 Eliz. c. 4 (Charitable Uses), 145. 
 
 4 Anne, c. 16 (Costs of Bill dismissed), 48, 50, 53, 54. 
 7 Anne, c. 12 (Ambassadors), 5.- 
 
 9 Geo. 2. 0. 36 (Mortmain Act), 111. 
 
 39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 98 (Thelusson Act), 1 10. 
 
 40 Geo. 3. u. 36 (Bank of England), 238. 
 
 48 Geo. 3. u. 123 (Discharge of Debtors), 369. 
 
 53 Geo. 3. u. 101 (Bedford Charity Act), 145. 
 
 59 Geo. 3. c. 91 (Sir S. Romilly's Act), 139, 145, 202. 
 
 6 Geo. 4. c. 74 (Repealed Trustee Act), 238. 
 
 1 Will. 4. c. 36 (Sir E. Sugden's Contempt Act), 268, 269, 369, 372. 
 
 2 Will. 4. c. 58 (Commitments for Contempt), 373. 
 
 3 & 4 Will. 4. u. 99 (Queen's Remembrancer), 387, n. 
 
 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 76 (Municipal Corporations Act), 143, 381. 
 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110 (Judgments), 47, 362, 369, 377, 380. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 553 
 
 STATUTES -continued. 
 
 2 & 3 Vict. c. 54 (Custody of Infants), 258, 265. 
 
 3 & 4 Vict. t. 82 (Judgments), 377, 380. 
 
 .;. 87 (Public Works), 205. 
 6 & 7 Vict c. 73. — See Attornies and Solicitoes Act, 1843. 
 8 & 9 Vict. c. 18 (Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845), 189 to 211. 
 9 & 10 Vict. c. 34 (Public "Works), 205. 
 
 10 & 11 Vict. ^^. 96 (Trustee Relief Act), 211 to 219. 
 
 11 & 12 Vict. c. 45 (Winding-up Act, 1848), 224 to 229, 393. 
 
 13 & 14 Vict. c. 35 (Sir George Turner's Act), 27, 85, 222 to 224. 
 
 „ u. 60 (Trustee Act, 1850), 171, 219 to 224. 
 
 15 & 16 Vict c. 55 (Trustee Act 1852), 219 to 224. 
 
 „ c. 80 (Masters in Chancery Abolition Act), 287, 351. 
 
 „ c. 83 (Patent Law Amendment Act, 1852), 288, n. 
 
 „ c. 86 (Improvement of Jui-isdiction of Equity), sec. 6, 349 ; 
 
 sec. 17-29, 349; sec. 39-31, 71 ; sec. 42, 127 j sec. 
 49,78, n. ; sec. 50, 110. 
 
 18 & 19 Vict c. 90 (Costs of the Crown), 138, 233, seq. 
 
 „ c. 91 (Merchant Shipping), 76. 
 
 19 & 20 Vict. c. 47 (Winding-up Act, 1857), 207, seq. 
 
 „ u. 97 (ilereantile Law Amendment Act), 296. 
 
 „ c. 120 (Leases and Sales of Settled Estates), 229. 
 
 20 & 21 Vict. c. 14 (Limited Liability), 10. 
 
 21 & 22 Vict. c. 27 (Chancery Amendment), 79. 
 
 22 & 23 Vict c. 35 (Law of Property Amendment), 230. 
 
 23 & 24 Viet t. 34 (Petitions of Right), 236. 
 
 „ u. 127 (Attornies and Solicitors), 249, 382, 399. 
 
 „ c. 134 (Bankruptcy Act 1861), 370. 
 
 „ c. 149 (Prisoners in Contempt), 268 to 270. 
 
 25 & 26 Vict c. 10 (Companies Act, 1862), 10, 14, 229, 393. 
 
 c. 42 (Chancery Regulation Act, 1862), 70. 
 
 c. 88 (Merchandise Marks Act 1862), 288, n. 
 „ c. 104 (Queen's Prison Abolition), 365. 
 
 STAYING PROCEEDINGS, 
 
 Contempt, till plaintiff in, clear his, 368, 383. 
 
 Creditor's suit in a, after an administration decree, 130 to 132. 
 
 Decree, under the, pending appeal, costs of motion for, 35. 
 
 Infants' suit in an, where two are instituted, 251, 252. 
 
 Legatee's suit, in a, after an administration decree, 132. 
 
 Payment of costs, for, pending appeal, 362, 363. 
 
 Second suit in a, until costs in first suit are paid, 270, 382, se?. ; suit 
 
 must be for the same matters, 382 ; what persons within the rule, 383 ; 
 
 costs must be taxed before the motion is made, ibid. 
 Suit, in a, where plaintiff's demand is satisfied, 51, 52. 
 
 STEWARD OF A MANOR, solicitor has no lien on papers delivered to 
 
 him as a, 391. 
 STOP ORDER, 
 
 Chambers, may be obtained in, where, 47, n. 
 
 Defendant dismissed with costs cannot obtain a, on funds in the suit, 381. 
 Incumbrancer, where allowed costs of obtaining, 47. 
 Interim, may be obtained on stock, &c., in court, where party has ob- 
 tained a charging order for costs, 380, 381. 
 Trustees served with petition for a, costs of, by whom to he borne, 215. 
 
 SUBMORTGAGEES.— See Assignees. 
 
 SUBPCENA FOR COSTS, 
 
 Attachment invalidated by slight error in, 363 ; but error may be cor- 
 rected, 364. 
 
554 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 SUBPCENA FOR COSTS— continued. 
 Form of, 363. 
 How sued out, 363. 
 Service of, 363. 
 SIJBSALE.— See Resale. 
 
 SUBSCRIPTION, what, suffiqient to a solicitor's bill of costs, 305, n. 
 SUBSCRIPTION, towards apauper's costs, not a ground for dispaupering, 265. 
 SUBSTITUTED SERVICE, 
 
 Application for, to be made ex parte, 44. 
 
 Sequestration, in proceedings under a, 367 ; of order for a, ibid. 
 Subpoena for costs, of, where allowed, and on whom, 364. 
 Taxing master's certificate, of, 389. 
 SUIT, COSTS OF THE, 
 
 Advance on account of, where made, 87. 
 
 Allegations preventing cause being heard on demurrer, effect of, on, 
 
 77, 78. 
 Apportionment of, 90 to 92. 
 Contribution for, amongst defendants, 86. 
 Defendant succeeding only on some grounds of defence, may have full, 
 
 where, 80 ; not putting in a plea or demurrer may lose, 78. 
 Discretionary, but in general follow the result, 66, 67. 
 Disposed of, may be, at different times, 65, 66. 
 Fraud, how affected by, 73, 74; by unproven charges of, ibid. 
 itsxA case, where it is a, 76. 
 
 Interlocutory application, cannot be disposed of on, unless by consent, 
 
 51, 52 ; but defendant's refusal to consent may influence the disposal of 
 
 costs at the hearing, ibid. ; exceptions in suits which are not brought to 
 
 a hearing, 53. 
 
 Laches, plaintiff may lose the, owing to, though he obtains relief, 74, 75. 
 
 Misconduct of either party, effect of, on, 74, 75 ; though there is a point 
 
 to be tried, 75. 
 Negotiations before suit, effect of, on, 73, 185. 
 Novelty of point of law, in case of, 76. 
 
 Plaintiff failing on part of his case, may have full, or the contrary, where,79 
 80 ; failing on the main point cannot save the, by raising a minor point, 
 80 ; failing, may have costs out of a fund, or on estate, 67 ; but qu. 
 whether from defendant personally, 68. 
 Previous decision on same point, effect of, on, 76. 
 
 Reservation of, does not include costs of interlocutory applications re- 
 served, 65. 
 Reserved with further consideration, without express mention, 65; but 
 
 not, if partly disposed of by decree at the hearing, ibid., 344. 
 Solicitor may have a charge for the, on the property recovered, 399. 
 Suggestion or recommendation of the Court, where the bill is filed on 
 
 the, 80. 
 Taxation of the, extends up to what period, 344. 
 Tender, effect of, on, 71 to 73. 
 SUITORS' FEE FUND, 
 
 Disbursements on behalf of a defendant, or prisoner, to whom solicitor 
 and counsel have been assigned, may be made out of the, 269 270- 
 provisions for reimbursement of the, ibid. 
 Guardian ad litem, costs of, cannot be paid out of the, 240. 
 Pauper's costs of contempt may be paid out of the, 269, 374. 
 Plaintiff's costs, on discharge of pauper defendant in contempt, not paid 
 out of the, 270, n. 
 SUITS, two instituted where one only necessary, what costs allowed, 77. 
 SUMMONS.- See Chambers. 
 
INDEX or MATTER. 555 
 
 SUPPLEMENTAL BILL, 
 
 Plaintiff may dismiss a, Ijefore appearance, witliout costs, 47, 
 Plaintiff's change of address should be stated on a, 7. 
 
 SUPPLEJIENTAL CAUSE, considered as one' with original cause, for 
 purpose of appeal, 97. 
 
 SURETIES, 
 
 Contribution amongst, costs of suit for, how to be borne, 77. 
 Security for costs, as, -who may be plaintiff's, 15, 16. 
 
 TAXATION, 
 
 Agreement between solicitor and client, in case of an, 313, 314. 
 Application for, where to be made to the judge who heard the cause, 
 
 310, n. 
 Application for, by parties jointly chargeable, should be joint, 312. 
 Apportionment of costs, in case of, 91, 92. 
 Contempt, party in, may proceed with, 312, 368. 
 Conveyancing counsel, fees paid to, liable to, 209. 
 
 Costs of, how and by whom to be borne, 358 to 361 ; items struck out as 
 chargeable against another person to be taken into account with refer- 
 ence to the, 359; where question as to liability is reserved, 360 ; where 
 several bills are taxed together, 359, 360. 
 Defendants appearing by same solicitor, of costs of, 89,344; severing, 87 
 
 to 89. 
 Delay, effect of, on right to, after payment, 323. 
 Disbursements, professional, what allowed as, on, 342. 
 Gross sum, where solicitor has charged a, he may supply detailed expla- 
 nation of it, on, 342. 
 ' In case the parties differ,' proceedings on, 339, 340. 
 Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, under the, 210. 
 Non-attendance of either party on, consequence of, 341. 
 Objections to allowance or disallowance of items on, how to be taken, 
 
 347. 
 Order of course for, how and on whose application obtained, 310, seg. 
 Where irregular, 313, 314 ; cannot be supported on the merits, 314; 
 irregularity of, how waived, 315. 
 
 Form of, 316; afteraction commenced, 317; where solicitor claims a 
 lien, 318 ; obtained on solicitor's application, 389. 
 
 Powers and duties of taxing master under an, 317, 318. 
 Parties to attend the, in the discretion of the taxing master to determine 
 
 who are, 338. 
 Party and party, between, what items allowed on, 353. 
 Pauper, of costs payable to, 266. 
 Proceedings on, general course of, 340, seg. 
 Review of, see Taxing Master's Certificate. 
 Revivor of proceedings on, between solicitor and client, 345 ; between 
 
 party and party, 384. 
 Security, petitioner if abroad must give, for costs of, and for amount to 
 
 be found due on, 12. 
 Service of proceedings on, on whom and how to be made, 341. 
 Solicitor and client, as between ; see Solicitor and Client, Costs as 
 
 BETWEEN. 
 
 Solicitor mortgagee, whether special directions should be given for, of 
 costs of, 282, 357; solicitor trustee, of costs of, 281. 
 
 Special application for, to be made by summons in chambers, 321, 323 ; 
 unnecessary, costs of, by whom to be borne, 312 ; solicitor not consent- 
 ing to common order, may have to pay costs of a, 312. 
 
 Special application, on a, before payment, 318 to 321. 
 
556 INDEX OF MATTEE. 
 
 TAXATION— con^muei 
 
 Special application for, after payment, where granted, 321 to 330 ; to be 
 
 made within twelve months, 322, 330 j how to be calculated, 329, 330 ; 
 
 form of order for, made on a, 330. 
 Survivors of several defendants defending jointly may continue, 385. 
 Third party, by, 331 to 337; by order of course, or special application, 
 
 where, 332 ; to be as between the solicitor and his client, 332 ; forms 
 
 of orders for, 336, 337. 
 Trustee Relief Act, trustee's costs of payment into court under the, liable 
 
 to, 212. 
 Up to what period, extends, 344. 
 And see Buxs of Costs. 
 
 TAXING MASTERS, 
 
 Allocatur of, does not create ajudgment, 389. 
 
 Judge may require the assistance of one of the, where, 339. 
 
 Powers and province of the, 338, 342, 345, 347. 
 
 To assist each other, 338, 339. 
 
 And see Common Law Taxing Officer. 
 
 TAXING MASTER'S CERTIFICATE, 
 
 Error in copy of the, will invalidate attachment, 389. 
 
 Filing of the, 345. 
 
 Review of the, application for, how to be made, 346 ; and evidence to be 
 
 used thereon, ibid. ; what questions may be entertained on, 346, 347 j 
 
 costs of application for, 347. 
 Service of the, how effected, 341; substituted, where allowed, 389. 
 Total amount of costs to be stated in the, 344. 
 Valid though not filed within the proper time, 345, 389. 
 
 TENANT FOR LIFE, 
 
 Allowed costs of assigning a charge on the inheritance vested in him 
 after decree to raise it, 168. 
 
 Costs of, charged upon the estate. Court will direct a sale to raise the, 386. 
 
 Costs of petition by, for payment of income, how to be borne, in administra- 
 tion suit, 134 ; under the Trustee Relief Act, 218. 
 
 Incumbrancer of, where company pays the costs of appearance of an, 
 200. 
 
 Partition suit, costs of, in a, 174. 
 
 Petition by, to deal with purchase monies paid into court, on whom to be 
 served, 199. 
 
 Receiver's poundage, &o., payable by, 276. 
 
 Redemption suit by, costs of, how to be borne, 161, 169. 
 
 TENANT IN TAIL, costs of, in a partition suit, 174. 
 
 TENANTS IN COMMON, entitled to costs of separate appearance, where, 202. 
 
 TENDER, 
 
 Costs of suit, how affected by, 71 to 73. 
 
 Costs up to date of tender, must be included in a, 71, 72. 
 
 Decree, after, may be proved on motion, or on further consideration, 164. 
 
 Defendant satisfying plaintiff's demand, and dismissing his bill, must pay 
 costs notwithstanding a, 59. 
 
 Mortgagor and mortgagee, as between, 163, 164; proper course incase 
 of a, 326. 
 
 Proved, should be, not sufficient to state it in answer, 85. 
 
 Unconditional, should be, 72. 
 
 TERM FEE, where allowed, 357 ; iimount of, 410. 
 
 TESTAMENTARY EXPENSES, costs of administration suit not included 
 in, 115. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 557 
 
 TESTIMONY, SUIT TO PERPETUATE, 
 
 Defendant, where entitled to costs of a, 149 ; costs of a, never ghen against 
 
 the, ibid. 
 Hearing, not brought to a, 150. 
 Heir at law, costs of, in a, 149, 242. 
 
 Order for payment of costs of a, made ex parte on return of the commis- 
 sion, and costs of service disallowed, 149, 150. 
 Plaintiff not proceeding with a, order made in case of, 150. 
 
 THIRD PARTY, 
 
 Delivery of bills of costs to, 335. 
 
 Taxation by, see Taxation. 
 
 Who may apply for taxation as a, 332. 
 
 TIME, 
 
 Demurring, for, 23. 
 
 Dismissing bill for want of prosecution, for, 36, 37. 
 
 TITHES SUIT, where contribution amongst defendants for the costs of a, will 
 be ordered, 86. 
 
 TITLE, 
 
 Costs of investigation of the, where discharged purchaser will not be en- 
 titled to the, 274, 275. 
 Costs of reference as to, under a sale by the court, where title is good, 
 how to be borne, 270; where the title is taken with compensation, j'iirf.; 
 where the title is bad or doubtful, 273. 
 
 TOWN AGENT, 
 
 Charge, may have a, on property recovered in the suit, 400. 
 Lien of the, on the client's papers, 396. 
 Trustee solicitor entitled to the costs of employing a, 2S0. 
 Where liable for mistakes in pleading, 233. 
 
 TRADE MARK, costs of suits to restrain the infringement of, 69, 72, 288, n. 
 
 TRANSFER TO CREDIT OF CAUSE, of purchase monies paid into court 
 by a company, plaintiff's application for, need not be served on de- 
 fendants, 44, 197 ; or if served, they should not appear, 198 ; but qu. as 
 to trustees, ibid. 
 
 TRAVELLING EXPENSES.— See Solicitor. 
 
 TRUSTEE, 
 
 Bankrupt, allowed costs as between solicitor and client, 220, 240. 
 
 Defaulting, deceased, costs of suit to charge the estate of a, 296. 
 
 Innocent, should join as co-plaintiff in suit to repair a breach of trust, 
 293; liability of, as between himself and the cestuis-que-trust, and as 
 between himself and his co-trustee, 122, 296. _ 
 
 Mortgagee's, made a defendant to foreclosure suit, costs of, allowed against 
 mortgagor, 166. 
 
 Professional, what costs allowed to, 294, 295. 
 
 Refusing to join co-trustee, or cestui-que-trust, as co-plaintiff, 89, 293. 
 
 Solicitor, see Solicitok. 
 
 To bar dower, of vendor, purchaser entitled to concurrence of the, where 
 no power of appointment, 179 ; of mortgagor, a proper party to a fore- 
 closure suit, 166. 
 
 Vendor's, refusing to convey, pays costs, 187, 300. 
 
 And see Trustees. 
 
 TRUSTEE AND CESTUI-QUE-TRUST, 
 Appearing by trustee solicitor, 281. 
 Severing, where entitled to separate costs, 88, 89. 
 Taxation, as between, 335. 
 
558 INDEX OF MATTEK. 
 
 TRUSTEE ACTS, 
 
 Company, -where bound under Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, to pay 
 
 costs of proceedings under the, to obtain a conveyance of lands, 192, n. 
 Costs under the, generally, 219 to 222. 
 Eeconveyance of mortgaged estate, costs of proceedings under the, to 
 
 obtain, 171. 
 Vendor and purchaser, as bet-ween, ho-w costs of proceedings under the, 
 
 to complete the title, to be borne, 222, 272. 
 
 TRUSTEE RELIEF ACT, 
 
 Costs under the, generally, 211 to 219. 
 
 Infant legatee's bill not dismissed on the grounds that the fund- might 
 
 have been paid in under the, 251. 
 Person may petition under the, in formd pauperis, 265. 
 And see Tkustees. 
 
 TRUSTEES, 
 
 Bill, filing a, instead of proceeding under the Trustee Relief Act, 77, 216 ; 
 dismissed as against, allowed costs of, as between party and party only, 
 292 ; but may be allowed costs as between solicitor and client, 293 ; and 
 may be allowed the costs out of the trust funds, where, 257, 259. 
 
 Breach of trust, costs of, and payable by, in suits to repair a, 143, 295 
 to 298. •* 
 
 Charities, of, costs, 142 to 144, 296, 297. 
 
 Corporation, costs of, and payable by a, as, see Cokporation. 
 
 Costs, charges, and' expenses, allowed, 2, 290 ; but should be expressly 
 mentioned, ibid. ; what comprised in, 294. 
 
 Counsel's advice, to what extent protected by, 123, 302. 
 
 Credits, disallowed in accounts, costs of, 298. 
 
 Disclaiming, entitled to costs as between party and party only, 220, 292 ; 
 should not put in full answer, 292. 
 
 In/crrmd pauperis, where allowed to sue, 265. 
 
 Indemnity, improperly asking for an, 301. 
 
 Interest, charged with, on balances, where allowed costs, 298. 
 
 Legal estate, using their, unfairly, or for their own advantage, 299 ; re- 
 fusing to convey the, according to tlie proper directions, 300. 
 
 Lion of, on trust estate 'for their . costs, charges, and expenses, 290 ; 
 how enforced, 292 ; none on an estate held to be lost to a charity by 
 breach of condition, 144, 291; nor upon the estate of one charity for 
 costs incurred respecting another, vested in the same trustees, 291. 
 
 Misstating accounts, 300. 
 
 Negligence, not deprived of costs on grounds of, 298. 
 
 New, costs of suit for appointment of, instead of petition under Trustee 
 Act, 77, 222 ; of a charity, company not bound to pay costs of petition 
 for payment of the dividends to, 201; costs of appointing, under 
 Trustee Relief Act, how to be borne, 220 ; appointment of, petidente lite, 
 by former trustees, consequences of, 299. 
 
 Ordered to pay costs personally, paying them out of the trust funds, 303. 
 
 Purchases by, of trust property, costs of suits to set aside, 297. 
 
 Quarrelling between themselves, 299. 
 
 Refusing to account, 299 ; to act without the sanction of the Court, 300 to 
 302 ; to retire, 298 ; to convey, 187, 300. 
 
 Respondents in House of Lords, entitled to appear by counsel, but not to 
 print case or appendix, 104. 
 
 Retiring, where allowed costs, or the contrary, 803. 
 
 Service on, of petition for transfer or investment of purchase monies, 
 whether costs of, allowed against the company, 198, 199. 
 
 Severing, where entitled to separate costs, 88, 293. 
 
 Solicitor and client, entitled to costs of suit as between, 2, 290; secus, 
 under a void instrument, 290, n. 
 
INDEX OF MATTER. 559 
 
 TRUSTEES— conftnuerf. 
 
 Strangers, as against, in same position as to costs as parties suing in 
 their own right, 288, 290, n. 
 
 Suhmissioti to the Court, claiming by -way of, allowed costs, 288. 
 
 Taxation of bills of costs of solicitor of, by cestui-que-trust, 333, seq. 
 
 Trustee Acts, cannot be made to pay costs of applications under the, 220. 
 
 Trustee Relief Act, paying money into court under the, to avoid a suit, 
 213 ; vexatiously, may be refused costs of appearance, or made to pay 
 costs, 212, 213; but not to refund costs of payment in, 212; where 
 allowed costs of appearance on applications under the, 213 to 215 ; what 
 costs allowed to, under the, 215; should not present a petition under 
 the, ibid. ; whether, may decline to pay money into court under the, 215, 
 216. 
 
 Unnecessary litigation, causing, charged with costs, 299. 
 
 Voidable settlement, costs of, in suits to set aside a, 288, 289. 
 
 And see Execdtors,,Tkijstee. 
 
 UNDERTAKING, 
 
 Appellant, by, as to costs, 96. 
 
 Plaintiff under an, to speed, in same position as if served with subpoena, 
 
 94. ♦ 
 
 Solicitor, by, see Solicitor. 
 
 UNNECESSARY, 
 
 Evidence in an interpleader suit, costs of, disallowed, 154, 349. 
 
 Matter in proceedings in chambers, disallowance of costs of, Addenda to 
 
 p. 96. 
 Matter in petition under the Lands Clauses Act, costs of, 205. 
 Matter in the pleadings and evidence. Court may direct the taxing 
 
 master to ascertain any, 29, 79, 205, 348 ; effect of direction, 348 ; form 
 
 of direction, ibid. 
 Party remaining before the Court in an administration suit, not allowed 
 
 costs, 205. 
 Proceedings in the suit, costs of, how to be borne, 78, 79. 
 
 UNOPPOSED APPLICATION, whether oosts of employing two counsel 
 on an, allowed, 3.51. 
 
 UNPROFESSIONAL ITEMS,— See Bn,i,s of Costs, Solicitor. 
 
 UNSIGNED bill of costs, where taxable, 305, «. 
 
 VARIATION, in details of the decree, will not save costs of appeal, 99, 100. 
 
 VENDITIONI EXPONAS, Consolidated Order as to writ of, 378. 
 
 VENDOR, costs of service on, of petition for investment in land of purchase 
 monies, not allowed against the company, 201. 
 
 VENDOR AND PURCHASER.— See Purchaser, Specific Perform- 
 ance, Trustee Acts. 
 
 ' VEXATIOUS ' payment into court under the Trustee Relief Act, what is a, 
 212, 213. 
 
 VISITOR OF CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS, costs of applications to 
 the Lord Chancellor as, 145. 
 
 VIvA VOCE examination under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 39, 31, 104. 
 
 WARD OF COURT, 
 
 Costs of contempt incurred respecting a, 370. 
 And see Infant. 
 
560 INDEX OF MATTER. 
 
 WHITECROSS STREET PRISON, substituted for the Queen's Prison 
 
 365 i whether a prisoner can he turned over to, by habeas, ibid. 
 WILFUL NEGLECT AND DEFAULT, costs incurred in injudiciously 
 
 defending an action, do not come -within, 122. 
 ' WILFUL REFUSAL,' what is a, under the Lands Clauses Acts, s. 80, 190, n. 
 WIIL, 
 
 Costs of suit to establish a, 243 ; to set aside a, 245, 246. 
 Solicitor has no lien on the, of his client, 391. 
 
 WINDING-UP, 
 
 Call for costs of, -where to be made, 228. 
 
 Contributories, where disallowed, and where liable to pay costs under a, 
 
 228,229, 
 Creditor's representative, rule'as to allowance of costs to the, 226, 227. 
 Petitioner may have to pay costs of, though order made, 225. 
 Several petitions for, costs of, how to be borne, 225, 229. 
 Unsuccessful opposition to application for, costs of, 225. 
 Void, where order for, is, costs, 226. 
 Voluntary, costs of, 229. 
 And see Official Liquidator. 
 
 WINDING-UP ACTS, costs under the, generally, 224 to 229. 
 
 WITNESSES, 
 
 Brought up but not cross-examined, expenses of, allowed on taxation 
 
 between party and party, 350. 
 Cross-examination of, expenses of, how to be borne, 30. 
 Defendants who are mere, dismissed with costs, 84 ; but as between party 
 
 and party only, 151. 
 Demurrers by, costs of, 19, and see Addenda. 
 Entitled to their expenses before being sworn, whether parties or 
 
 strangers to the suit, 29 ; what expenses allowed, ibid. 
 Refusing to be sworn, 30 ; to produce a deed, ibid. 
 Viva voce examination of, at the hearing, or on appeal, costs of, how to be 
 
 borne, 31, 104. 
 And see Solicitor's Libk. 
 WRITTEN 
 
 Bill, costs of, where allowed, 349. 
 
 Brief of answer, costs of, disallowed, 349, 350. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 I-OKDOH- 
 RIlfTED BX SPOTTISWOODE AM"D CO. 
 NEW-STREliT SQUAKE 
 
 -It 
 
'SSI