(a) The following is a copy of the certificate:

"Re Colquhoun. To the Vice-Chancellor Stuart.-Sir,In compliance with your Honor's directions I have looked into the papers relating to this taxation, and beg leave respectfully to state as follows:-1. The propriety of the taxation appears to me to depend entirely on the nature of the retainer originally given by Mr. Ford to Mr. Colquhoun, and neither in Mr. Ford's petition to tax, nor in the bill itself, nor in the petition of the assignees complaining of the taxation, is there any statement whether Mr. Ford retained the solicitor for himself separately, or whether jointly with all or with some of the other Defendants, who were also clients of Mr. Colquhoun, nor are there stated any circumstances from which I am able to infer the nature of the retainer. 2. The bill appears to be taxed on the assumption that Mr. Ford was liable severally for his own share of the costs and nothing else, and, assuming that to be the fact, then a taxation allowing against him all that relates to himself severally, and a proportionate part of the general costs, would be in ac

Mr.

cordance with the established practice of the Court (Harman v. Harris, 1 Russell, 157; Cradock v. Piper, 1 Mac. & G. 664). 3. The practice of the Court as regards the bills of costs of several Defendants employing one solicitor, so far as regards themselves and the other parties in the suit, is free from doubt, and the taxations according to such practice are of constant occurrence. It is thus stated in Mr. Smith's Practice: The Plaintiffs in a suit in Chancery, however numerous, can have but one bill of costs; and the same rule applies to Defendants appearing by the same solicitor, however large their number, or however diversified their interests. Thus, if one solicitor is concerned for any number of Defendants, whatever their interests may be, he is only entitled to one bill of costs for them all, although he may in that bill charge for any separate answers which are proper for any of them, or for the employment of separate counsel at the hearing. In such cases he can, however, charge only one term fee and one attendance in Court for all of them' (5th edit. p. 580). The subject of apportionment of costs in re

not called upon.

lation to the matter of the suit has been already considered; there may also be an apportionment in relation to the persons who are parties. Thus, if one solicitor appears for three Defendants, and the bill is dismissed with costs as to one of them, the Plaintiff can only be compelled to pay the costs of such proceedings as exclusively relate to that Defendant, and onethird of the costs of the proceedings taken jointly for all three Defendants' (p. 580). 4. These principles are applicable to the dealings between the solicitor and bis clients on his demands against them for work and labour, because the solicitor is bound, as I conceive, to make his charges against his clients and to keep his accounts with them according to the rules and practice of the Court. 5. But, nevertheless, the extent of the liability of the client may vary according to the circumstances of each case; in other words, according to the retainer of the solicitor of the Court. 6. Thus each Defendant may, on his retainer, be liable severally for his own costs only; or all or several may be liable jointly, or one may have made himself liable for his own defence, and also for that of one or more of his co-Defendants. 7. The solicitor is, however, as I conceive, bound to keep and deliver his accounts, with reference

1854.

Re

The COLQUHOUN.

both to this liability and to the practice of the Court. 8. If, therefore, the liability be a several, and not a joint liability, he is to charge against the client all the work he does for him severally, and his proportion of the general charges which are applicable to him and others. 9. If, however, the liability be joint, the solicitor makes out one joint bill against all the clients, and whether he sues them at law, or proceeds against them in this Court under the statute, his proceedings must, I apprehend, be against them jointly. 10. And, on the other hand, it has been decided, both in equity and at law (Re Chilcote, 1 Bea. 421; Hobby v. Prichard, 2 Meeson & Welsby, 124), that one of two persons jointly liable on a solicitor's bill cannot have an order to tax, because the solicitor is entitled to the undertaking of all to pay (although, no doubt, under special circumstances, as in case of a paid bill (Re Stephen, 2 Phill. 562), or, probably also, on the Petitioner bringing the amount into Court, taxation would be ordered). After judgment on a joint bill, whether in this Court under the statute, or at law, the solicitor could undoubtedly levy his whole demand against one Defendant, but such Defendant would, in such case, be entitled to contribution over (Edger v. Knapp, 5 Man. & Gr.753). 12. And when

11.

a solicitor sues his client for his bill at law, and the client disputes his liability to the whole or any portion of the demand, he may have the bill taxed without prejudice to his liability, and may afterwards try before the jury whether he is liable to pay the whole, or any, or what portion of the bill, the items of which have been so ascertained by the taxation; but in this Court the amount and the liability are both to be ascertained by the Master. 13. It appears to me, therefore, that the position, that the solicitor in this instance could at law have recovered his whole bill against any one of his clients, must be made with great reservations, and must depend on the circumstances of the case (whether the liability be joint or several is a question for the jury; see Hillings v. Gregory, 1 Carrington & P. 627). 14. The allegation in the petition of appeal that each Defendant is severally liable for the whole of each general fee or proceeding, so that the amount be not increased by its being taken on behalf of several persons, and not to the proportion only, does not appear to be in accordance with the practice of this Court, or with the practice of the Courts of law. If a bill against two Defendants appearing by the same solicitor be dismissed with costs against one, and with

to

out costs as to the other, all the general costs are divided, though if there had been only one Defendant, the amount would have been the same (Harmer v. Harris, 1 Russ. 155); so, in an action at law, if the verdict be for one Defendant and against another (Griffiths v. Jones, 2 Cr., M. & R. 333; Starling v. Cozens, 2 Cr., M. & R. 445); so, in the common case of an attorney attending at the assizes to try two actions for two distinct clients, the expenses of his journey and attendance are equally divided, and a moiety only charged to each. And in none of these cases is it ever taken into consideration whether the remaining moiety will ever be received or not, that being considered a question entirely between the solicitor and the person liable to pay such moiety. 15. It does not appear to me that the petition presented by Mr. Ford for the order to tax the bill (to which I have referred), contains any admission which varies or increases his original liability, whatever that may be. He says that he, the Petitioner employed Mr. Colquhoun to defend him in a certain suit, wherein A. was Plaintiff and B. and others were Defendants; that the solicitor had delivered him a bill of fees and disbursements which contains many extravagant and unreasonable charges, and he