HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0921 and id is 1 raw text is: XII CLARK & PINNELLY, 91 PURVES V. LANDELL [1845]
survived her husband. No complaint is made of the marriage being premature, and
no complaint could have been made, because no injury accrued either to Miss Thomson
or to her relations. All has been done by the Baron de Biel which they expected that
he should do, and that is to settle upon her this sum of £500 a year.
Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the decree of the Master of the
Rolls, affirmed by the Lord Chancellor, is perfectly according to the doctrine which has
hitherto prevailed in Courts of Equity, and does not at all extend it; and I think that
we should infringe on a very useful and necessary rule, if we were not to hold in this
case that the contract is binding, and that this second sum of £10,000 must now be
settled on the issue of the marriage.
As to what took place when the settlement was executed, I own it seems to me to
be rather immaterial, because we are considering the interests of the issue. This
bill is filed by the child of the marriage, therefore the interest of that child could not
at all be prejudiced by what took place when that, settlement was executed. If there
never had been any settlement on the faith of this agreement of December, 1825, that
agreement alone would have been a sufficient foundation for this bill, which is filed
on the part of the infant, that the second sum of £10,000 might be settled for his
benefit.
If it were material, I should feel much more inclined to rely upon the account
given by the Baron de Biel than by Mr. Wordsworth, but it seems to me to be quite
immaterial; unless that settlement exhausts the agreement, the child has still a clear
right to come into a Court of Equity, and to insist on the agreement being carried into
effect.
For all these reasons I am clearly of opinion that the decree was right, and that the
judgment of the Court below ought to be affirmed, with costs.
The decree and order were then affirmed, with costs.
[91] WILLIAM PURVES,-Appellant; WILLIAM LANDELL,-Respondent
[March 10, 1845].
[Mews' Dig. xiii. 1467. See Hunter v. Caldwell, 1847, 10 Q. B. 69; Parker v. Rolls,
1854, 14 C.B. 691 ; Blair v. Assets Co. (1896), A.C. 409. As to form of Statement
of Claim in Supreme Court, see R.S.C. 1883, App. C. Sec. v. No. 8.]
Attorney-Law Agent-Pleading.
An attorney or law agent is only responsible in damages to his client for gross
ignorance or gross negligence in the performance of his professional services.
A declaration, or a summons against an attorney or a law agent, to recover
damages for loss occasioned by his management of a cause, must charge gross
ignorance or gross negligence, or must, at least, contain allegations of facts,
from which the inference is inevitable that the defendant has been guilty of one
or the other.
The law as to both these matters is the same in England and in Scotland.
This was a suit instituted by Landell to recover from Purves who was a writer
to the Signet, compensation for the loss occasioned, as it was alleged, by his ini-
properly conducting a previous suit (Landell v. Landell, 16 Dunl., Bell., and Murr.,
388), in which he had acted as law agent for Landell. The summons contained
allegations to the following effect :-.Mark Landell, of Coldingham Hill, the uncle of
the respondent, was, at the time of his death, which happened many years ago,
proprietor of an estate in Jamaica and of the negroes on that estate. He left a
widow, Margaret, and a daughter, Hannah Landell, him surviving. By the law of
Jamaica the widow was entitled to one-third of the estate in life-rent, the fee thereof
being vested in the daughter, subject to the life-rent interest of her mother.
Hannah Landell died on the 13th of March, 1833, and the respondent, who was her
heir at law, then became entitled to the estate, subject to the life-rent of the widow.
The compensation payable under the Slavery Abolition Act, in respect of the negroes
on the estate of Mark Landell, amounted to £1000, and [92] William Landell, as his
1332](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0921&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)