17 N.E. 50 (Ill. 1888), Hulse v. Mershon

Citation:17 N.E. 50, 125 Ill. 52
Opinion Judge:[125 Ill. 53] MAGRUDER, J.
Party Name:HULSE et al. v. MERSHON et al.
Case Date:May 09, 1888
Court:Supreme Court of Illinois

Page 50

17 N.E. 50 (Ill. 1888)

125 Ill. 52

HULSE et al.


MERSHON et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois

May 9, 1888

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

[125 Ill. 53] MAGRUDER, J.

This is a creditors' bill, filed by appellees against appellants in the superior court of Cook county, upon three judgments, amounting to $2,709.40, rendered by that court at the October term, 1886, against the appellant E. M. Hulse, and upon which judgments executors were duly issued, and returned unsatisfied. The bill seeks to reach the amounts of certain attorney's fees, included in certain judgments by confession entered up in favor of a number of preferred creditors, who, together with their attorneys, are made defendants, and appear herein as appellants. Answer was filed to the bill, and replication filed to the answer. The cause was heard upon an agreed state of facts, embodied in a written stipulation, signed by counsel for both sides. The superior court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the case was taken by writ of error to the appellate court. The latter court reversed the decree of the superior court, and remanded the cause, with directions to decree the payment of the moneys collected as attorney's fees in satisfaction of the judgments of the complainants; ordering that the plaintiffs in error there, who are appellees here, recover their costs, etc. The case is brought here by appeal, and upon certificate of importance, signed by two judges of the appellate court. On September 9, 1886, E. M. Hulse, then engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling furniture in Chicago, owed complainants $2,709.40, as already stated, and also owed [125 Ill. 54] the following amounts to the following defendants: Cassell, $3,825.71; Katlinsky & Co., $985.25; Harris Rag & Metal Co., $1,000; Swisky, $517; Bowes, $1,011.35; Hartman, $505.95; Barth, $611. On that day, hulse, being insolvent, and aware of his insolvency, desired to prefer the defendants thus named, who were simple-contract creditors, and whose claims were not yet due, and to that end retained as his personal counsel two attorneys in Chicago, whom he informed of his insolvency, and consulted as to what steps might be lawfully taken to prefer said creditors. He was advised that he could give defendants judgment notes, and add therein reasonable attorney's fees. Thereupon the attorneys, at the request of Hulse, prepared judgment notes...

To continue reading