Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1148

or impeded in the prosecution of their suits, or in the execution of their duty; and that the office books belonging to each division might be forthwith restored to the particular study and division to which they respectively belonged; and that the respondents, and their several deputies, might be directed to file such records, and sign such certificates, and perforin such duties, as were incumbent on them to perform, without delay; and that satisfaction might be made to the appellant for the loss and injury he had sustained by the delays and impediments the respondents had already occasioned to him; and that the appellant might have an allowance from the six clerks, or some of them, for his time, trouble, and attendance, in advising the suitors who were his clients in such matters of practice as the respondents had neglected to do; and that the respondents might be restrained, by the injunction or order of the court, from proceeding at law, or in the petty bag, for recovery of any fees pretended to be due from the appellant to the respondents; and that they might account with the appellant, and deduct for all fees and sums received from his clients; and that it might be determined by the court what fees or compositions were due from him, and to whom, and when the same were payable; and that he might have such further or other relief as should seem meet.

The respondents, having been served with process, appeared to the bill so filed by the appellant; and on the 28th of May 1788, (but not till after the appellant had obtained an order of injunction to stay the proceedings at law against him for want of putting in their answers in due time,) they filed their joint and several demurrers and answers to the said bill; and they thereby demurred, first, as to so much of the bill as prayed that the compositions therein mentioned to be payable by the appellant to the respondents William Luther Sewell and John Kipling, respectively, might be established for the time past, and might be declared to remain vet undetermined; for that the appellant had not shewn, by his bill, any title to have such compositions established or declared to remain yet undetermined. Secondly, as to so much of the bill as prayed that the agreement before mentioned to have been entered into by the respondents, might be set aside, and that any orders of the Court of Chancery, confirming or tending to confirm the same, might be rescinded, for that the appellant had not, by his bill, shewn that such agreement concerned him so as to give him any right to interfere with respect [561] thereto by bill in equity. Thirdly, as to so much of the bill as prayed that the respondents might be directed to do and perform the duties of their respective clients, each in their respective studies and divisions only; and that each of them might appoint a separate deputy for transacting the business of his particular department and division; and that the office books belonging to each division might be forthwith restored to the particular study and division to which they respectively belonged; and that the respondents, and their several deputies, might be directed to file such records, and sign such certificates, and perform such duties, as were incumbent on them to perform without delay; for that such matters appeared, by the bill, to concern all the suitors of the Court of Chancery; and that the appellant had not shewn any ground for making any decree or order concerning the same, upon a bill in equity at the suit of the appellant. Fourthly, as to so much of the bill as prayed that satisfaction might be made to the appellant for the loss and injury the appellant alledged he had sustained by the delays and impediments which the appellant alledged the respondents had occasioned; for that the appellant had not, by his bill, shewn any impediments to his proceeding according to the course of the common law to obtain such satisfaction, if he was entitled thereto. And fifthly; as to so much of the bill as prayed that the appellant might have an allowance from the respondents, or some of them, for his time, trouble, and attendance, in advising the suitors who were his clients in such matters of practice as in his said bill mentioned; for that the appellant had not, by his said bill, shewn any title to any such allowance.

On the 3d of July 1788, this demurrer came on to be argued before the Lord Chancellor Thurlow; when his Lordship was pleased to allow the demurrer.

Upon the demurrer being so allowed, the respondents, on the 29th of October 1788, obtained an order to dissolve the injunction, unless cause; and upon that occasion the appellant filed exceptions to the answer, and shewed the same for cause against dissolving the injunction; and on the 6th of November 1788, an order was