Skip to content


Orr Vs. Norendra Nath Sen and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR19Cal368
AppellantOrr
RespondentNorendra Nath Sen and ors.
Excerpt:
attorney's lien - costs--change of attorneys during a pending suit--costs of both attorneys realized by the second attorney--lien, attorney's. - .....by notice to the defendant not to pay over the amount recovered to the plaintiff until the lien was satisfied, and after the judgment had been satisfied, and the amount thereof was in the hands of messrs. sen & co., they had a lien upon the fund for their costs. mr. orr by handing his bill to messrs. sen & co. for taxation, and by not giving notice to the defendant of his lien, enabled messrs. sen & co. to get the whole fund into their hands; but we think they did so on behalf, not only of themselves and the plaintiff, but on behalf of mr. orr also, and that the fund when in their hands was subject to a lien for the whole of the costs, which had been incurred in recovering it, i.e., not only for their own costs, but for those of mr. orr as well, and that they were bound not to.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.

1. Upon the facts stated, our answer is that judgment was rightly given in favour of the plaintiff against Messrs. Sen & Co.

2. When judgment was given in favour of Thakamoney Dassee against the Secretary of State for her claim and costs, both Mr. Orr and Messrs. Sen & Co. had a lien on that judgment for the amount of their costs, which either of them might have enforced by notice to the defendant not to pay over the amount recovered to the plaintiff until the lien was satisfied, and after the judgment had been satisfied, and the amount thereof was in the hands of Messrs. Sen & Co., they had a lien upon the fund for their costs. Mr. Orr by handing his bill to Messrs. Sen & Co. for taxation, and by not giving notice to the defendant of his lien, enabled Messrs. Sen & Co. to get the whole fund into their hands; but we think they did so on behalf, not only of themselves and the plaintiff, but on behalf of Mr. Orr also, and that the fund when in their hands was subject to a lien for the whole of the costs, which had been incurred in recovering it, i.e., not only for their own costs, but for those of Mr. Orr as well, and that they were bound not to part with the fund until so much of the lien as was a security for Mr. Orr's costs had been satisfied. They have parted with the fund without reference to those costs, and the plaintiff is, we think, entitled to call upon them to pay the amount.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //