
    Jordans vs. Van Hoesen.
    Where a suit is prosecuted in the names of two attorneys, by one of them as the attorney oj loth, a retaining fee is not taxable; nor can a hill of particulars be charged when none is demanded by the defendant; and but one counsel fee can be demanded, although a hearing before referees is repeatedly adjourned.
    Motion for re-taxation. Ambrose L. Jordan and Allen Jordan commenced an action of assumpsit against the defendant, declaring hy AUen Jordan, their attorney. The plaintiffs are partners, and claimed to recover for work, labor, care, diligence, and attendance as the attorneys, counsellors, solicitors, and agents of the defendant in the prosecuting of divers suits and businesses. They attached to the declaration and served with it a hill of particulars, which was taxed at $17.50. The defendant had not called for such bill.' They also charged a retaining fee and a counsel fee, on hearing before the referees eight times repeated, the referees having had eight meetings, the cause having been as frequently adjourned, and a fee being charged for each adjournment; which charges were allowed by the taxing officer.
   The Court

[649] decided that the action being substantially by the plaintiffs in their own names, a retaining fee was not taxable; that the hill of particulars not having been called for by the defendant, was not taxable; and that but one counsel fee ought to be allowed: and directed a re-taxation accordingly.  