Currie in April, 1830, there can be no doubt that it was the intention of both parties to include all Mr. and Mrs. Seaman's interest in the property mortgaged, vested or contingent; for, after describing the fifth share, the deed adds, "and also such share and interest of and in the said hereditaments, &c., as the said *Georgiana or the said John Seaman in her right were or might become entitled to on the death of any of the children of the said Benjamin Norton without issue as aforesaid; " and, according to the covenant to levy a fine or suffer a recovery, the fine or recovery was to be "of all and singular the said one undivided fifth part, hereditaments and premises thereby granted and conveyed or intended so to be, with and by such names and descriptions as should be sufficient to comprise and ascertain the same." The description in the fine levied was "of the undivided fifth part or share of Mrs. Seaman;" but this was clearly an error or misdescription, and it is cured by section 4 of 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74. I agree that the fine will not affect the copyholds, and that Mrs. Seaman's interest in them, of whatever value, remains to her, but that the deed passed such interest in them as Mr. Seaman was able to dispose of. The Lord Justice KNIGHT BRUCE Concurred. LIFE ASSOCIATION OF SCOTLAND v. SIDDAL. [ *79 ] PARBURY'S CASE. IN RE THE WARWICK AND WORCESTER RAILWAY COMPANY. (3 D. F. & J. 80—92; S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 513; 7 Jur. N. S. 503; 4 L. T. N. S. 62; 9 W. R. 470.) An order was made in 1849 for winding up an abortive association for obtaining a Railway Act. One of the shareholders, who had not been put upon the list of contributories, obtained in India, in 1853, a discharge under the Indian Insolvent Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 21. In his schedule, filed in pursuance of that Act, he did not refer to his liability under the winding-up order, nor in any way refer to the railway scheme. In 1858, having returned to England, he was put on the list of contributories: Held, by the LORD CHANCELLOR and the Lord Justice TURNER, the Lord Justice KNIGHT BRUCE doubting, that the omission in the schedule did not prevent the discharge from having the same effect as a bankruptcy certificate in England. Held, also, that where a Company has come to an end before the bankruptcy of a shareholder, the certificate discharges him from all liability to contribute to debts and also from all liability to contribute to the expenses of winding up, and that he ought not to be put on the list of contributories. [Under the modern law of bankruptcy the bankrupt's liability to future calls in a Company may be estimated and proved whether the Company is being wound up or not, and the bankrupt is consequently discharged from future liability as a contributory in either case.-O. A. S.] 1861. Feb. 9, 13, 16. 1861. Feb. 25, 26, 27. KNIGHT TURNER, [93] [ *94 ] IN RE NICHOLSON, A SOLICITOR (1), AND IN RE 6 & 7 (3 D. F. & J. 93-104; S. C. 30 L. J. Ch. 585; 7 Jur. N. S. 434; 4 L. T. N. acted as solicitor of J. from 1833 to 1857, and during that period received and paid large sums of money on his account. In November, 1853, N. delivered to J. 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. N. 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 included. None of the accounts were ever settled. In July, 1857, the relation of solicitor and client was determined, and J. placed the matter in the hands of a fresh solicitor. In March, 1858, the last account was delivered, with another bill of costs. In April, 1858, J. presented a petition for taxation of all the bills, showing considerable items of over-charge: 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. THIS was a petition by way of appeal from the MASTER OF THE ROLLS, the object being to obtain taxation of a large number of bills of costs, amounting in the whole to about 4,0007., most of which had been delivered more than twelve months before the original petition at the Rolls had been presented. From the year 1833, down to the year 1857, Mr. Nicholson was the attorney and solicitor of the petitioner, and acted as such in several actions at law and suits in equity, and in various matters of conveyancing and in other business. Mr. Nicholson also received and paid large sums of money on account of the petitioner, and there was an account current between them in respect of such receipts and payments. In November, 1853, Mr. Nicholson delivered to the petitioner his account current, extending from 1833 to September, 1853. The receipts with which Mr. Nicholson debited himself were upwards of 77,000l., and the result was a balance of 3127. 8s. 11d. due from Mr. *Nicholson to the petitioner. In this account Mr. Nicholson took credit for twenty-seven bills of costs, amounting to about 3,500l., which bills he delivered to the petitioner at the same time. He also delivered a bill of costs for business done for the petitioner as executor of his brother. In May, 1856, a subsequent account current was delivered, in which Mr. Nicholson debited himself with the above balance. of 312l. 8s. 11d., and with sums subsequently received, amounting in all to 23,3987., the result being a balance of 211l. 15s. 6d. due to him from the petitioner. Mr. Nicholson took credit for the amount of ten bills of costs, which were delivered at the same time with the account. In February, 1857, a continuation of the account current was delivered, showing a balance of (1) In re Elmslie & Co. (1873) L. R. 16 Eq. 326, 42 L. J. Ch. 570, 28 L. T. 731. 391. 3s. 9d. due from the petitioner, and in June, 1857, a fourth account was delivered showing a balance of 4187. 12s. 10d. due from the petitioner. In this last account Mr. Nicholson took credit for the amount of four bills of costs, which were delivered at the same time. Previous to this a long correspondence had been going on between the petitioner and Mr. Nicholson about the bills of costs, with which the petitioner was extremely dissatisfied, and in July, 1857, the relation of solicitor and client between them was finally closed by the petitioner placing the matter in the hands of his present solicitors. In March, 1858, the last account current was delivered, and credit taken in it for another bill of costs delivered at the same time. The balance appearing due from the petitioner was 31l. 6s. 6d., in addition to the balance due on the last previous account. None of these accounts were ever settled. In April, 1858, the petitioner presented a special petition for taxation of the bills, offering to bring into *Court the sums of 4187. 12s. 10d. and 31l. 6s. 6d., appearing upon the accounts current to be due from him. The petitioner alleged, as special circumstances entitling him to taxation notwithstanding the lapse of more than twelve months since the delivery of most of the bills, that the bills contained many gross over-charges and such as the petitioner was advised were considered as fraudulent by the Court, amounting, as the petitioner was advised and believed, to upwards of 7007. As evidence of the bills containing gross over-charges, the petitioner set forth instances of alleged overcharges of different kinds contained in the bills of costs, and arranged objections to the bills under different heads, specifying under each head a number of particular instances of over-charges falling under such head. On 26th July, 1858, the MASTER OF THE ROLLS made an order directing the petitioner to pay the two sums amounting to 4497. 19s. 4d. into Court, and ordering Mr. Nicholson thereupon. to deliver up all deeds, &c., to the petitioner; such payment and delivery of documents to be without prejudice to any question, and the rest of the petition was adjourned. The petition again came on before the Master of the Rolls on the 4th of November, 1858, when, after the respondent's case was closed, his Honour proposed to the counsel on both sides, that his Honour should consider the case and look into the petition and affidavits and bills of costs, and in case he should hold the petitioner entitled to a taxation, his Honour would (both parties consenting) decide, with the aid of a taxing Master, whether any and what deductions should be made from the bills of costs, and whether any and what additions, by way of sur In re NICHOLSON. [95] In re NICHOLSON," [ *96 ] [97] charge, should be made to the cash account, the parties being willing to waive the *production of vouchers before his Honour, except when his Honour might consider it necessary or proper to call for them. The petitioner and Mr. Nicholson, by their counsel, consented to such course being taken, it being, as the petitioner alleged, expressly understood that in case the MASTER OF THE ROLLS, upon looking into the bills of costs and affidavits, should be of opinion that he could proceed in the manner proposed, then the petitioner should be at liberty to lay before him a detailed statement of the particulars of the over-charges complained of by the petitioner, in order that such statement should be considered by his Honour. The further hearing of the petition was then adjourned. On the 24th of November, 1858, a clerk of Mr. Nicholson called on the petitioner's solicitor, and stated to him that his Honour required the affidavits and bills of costs. They were accordingly delivered, and no further communication was received. by your petitioner's solicitors until the matter was put into his Honour's paper for judgment on the 13th of January, 1859. On the 13th of January, 1859, his Honour stated that with the assistance of his chief clerk he had gone through the bills of costs and had taxed off the sum of 3197. 4s. 8d., and that under the circumstances he did not think it was a case for costs on either side, and that as to the cash account the parties would be at liberty to lay statements before him for the purpose of surcharging and falsifying, or supporting the accounts. Counsel for the petitioner thereupon submitted to his Honour that the course which had been taken was not in pursuance of the consent given by the petitioner, as the *petitioner had not had an opportunity of laying before his Honour a statement of the items objected to in the bills of costs. It then appeared that his Honour in asking for papers had intended that the parties || should at the same time lay before him such statements as they thought necessary to enable him to decide as to the items to be taxed off. On the 19th of February, 1860, the petitioner served upon Mr. Nicholson a notice of motion that the order pronounced by his Honour on the 13th of January, 1859, might not be drawn up, and that in pursuance of the consent given by the petitioner and the respondent on the hearing of the petition on the 14th of November, 1858, the petitioner might be at liberty to lay before his Honour a detailed statement of the over-charges complained of in the bills of costs, and that such statement might be taken into consideration by his Honour, and such order made thereon H as should be just, or otherwise, that, notwithstanding such consent, the petition might be reheard. By a consent order made on the 9th of March, 1859, on the hearing of the motion, it was ordered that the petitioner should be at liberty to carry in before his Honour in chambers a detailed list of the items to which he objected in the bills of costs, with a statement of his grounds of objection and references to such parts of the bills and affidavits respectively as related thereto; and also a similar list of the items to which he objected, or which he sought to add by way of surcharge in the cash account, and that these lists, with the explanations accompanying them (which were not to go into any arguments), were, before being laid before his Honour, to be communicated to Mr. Nicholson, who was to be at liberty to deliver to his Honour at chambers answers to *the several objections and claims (also not going into any arguments), and both parties were thereupon to sign the said list and answers, and to deliver them to his Honour, who would then proceed to moderate the said bills, and settle the said cash account. On the 20th of December, 1859, in pursuance of this order, the solicitor of the petitioner delivered to Mr. Nicholson 1. A statement of the principles on which the chief objections. to the said bills of costs were based, in which statement such principles were distinguished by the letters A to N. 2. The said bills of costs interleaved and every objectionable item distinguished, and the amount of the objectionable charge taxed off in the inner half of the blank pages, and opposite the objectionable items, leaving the other half of the said pages for the observations of Mr. Nicholson in answer. 3. A statement of objections and queries as to Mr. Nicholson's cash accounts. Difficulties having been found in carrying out this order, from the refusal of Mr. Nicholson to sign the list of objections and answers, the petitioner on the 20th of November, 1860, presented a petition to the Master of the Rolls, stating in detail the difficulties the petitioner had experienced in carrying out the last-mentioned order, and praying that such directions might be given as should be necessary for carrying into effect the order of the 9th of March, 1859, or otherwise that it might be referred to one of the taxing Masters of this Court to tax the bills of costs, with the usual directions, or with such other directions as should be just under the circumstances of the case, and that if necessary the *petition might be reheard, and such. order made thereon as should be just. By an order dated the 15th day of December, 1860, made In re NICHOLSON. [ *98 ] [99] |