Adams v. Crown Coal & Tow Co.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1902
• Citation: 198 Ill. 445,65 N.E. 97
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: ADAMS v. CROWN COAL & TOW CO. et al.

198 Ill. 445

65 N.E. 97

ADAMS

v.CROWN COAL & TOW CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 25, 1902.

Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.

A proceeding in which Bart S. Adams, Edward L. Thomas, and the Crown Coal & Tow Company voluntarily appealed and submitted their claims to certain money paid into court under order by the Crown Coal & Tow Company. From a judgment of the appellate court of the Fourth district (97 Ill. App. 254) affirming a decree in favor of Edward L. Thomas, Bart S. Adams appeals. Affirmed.J. M. Holmes and Kent Koerner, for appellant.

Webb & Webb, for appellees.

BOGGS, J.

At the September term, 1900, the circuit court of St. Clair county, in a proceeding in chancery instituted by the appellant, Adams, and the appellee John T. Taylor, against the Crown Coal & Tow Company, awarded a money decree against said Crown Coal & Tow Company in favor of Adams in the sum of $2,124.33, and a like decree in favor of Taylor in the sum of $952.66. On the 8th day of October, 1900, the said Crown Coal & Tow Company was served with written notice by the appellant, Adams, forbidding the payment of the amount found due him by the decree, or any part thereof, to any agent or attorney for himself, or to any one except himself in person. On the 15th day of October, 1900, the appellees E. L. Thomas and said John T. Taylor served the said company with the following notice: ‘You will please notice that you will not pay more than one-third of the amount of the total sum of the decree in the above case to Bart S. Adams or his attorney, John M. Holmes. We further notify you that we, the undersigned, are the owners of two-thirds of said decree, and shall require you to pay the same to Webb & Webb, our attorneys. We hereby attach a copy of the agreement between ourselves and Bart S. Adams, showing interests of the several parties in the said decree. Edward L. Thomas. John T. Taylor.’ There was attached to this notice a copy of the contract referred to in the notice, which read as follows: ‘Whereas, a controversy has arisen between Bart S. Adams, E. L. Thomas, and John T. Taylor over their respective rights and interests in the amounts due to them, respectively, from the Crown Coal and Tow Company: Now, it is agreed between the three said parties, for the purpose of settling the said controversy and for the further purpose of settling and adjusting all claims and disputes between them arising from or growing out of their connection with the Crown Coal Company, that the judgment for $1,900 and a fraction, be the same more or less, heretofore rendered by the circuit court of St. Clair county, Illinois, in the case of Bart S. Adams vs. Crown Coal and Tow Company, and the judgment heretofore rendered in the same court for $3,200, be the same more or less, in the case of Bart S. Adams and John T. Taylor vs. The Crown Coal and Tow Company, and the judgment which may hereafter be rendered in the accounting suit of Bart S. Adams and John T. Taylor vs. The Crown Coal and Tow Company, and pending in said court, shall be deemed and considered as belonging to the said Bart S. Adams, E. L. Thomas, and John T. Taylor, and the proceeds and avails thereof, after deducting therefrom the costs, fees, and charges due on account thereof, shall be divided equally between the said three parties, as and when the same shall be realized. In witness whereof the said three parties have hereunto set their hands and seals this 3d day of February, A. D. 1898. Bart S. Adams. Edward L. Thomas. John T. Taylor.’

On the said 15th day of October the said Crown Coal & Tow Company paid to the clerk of the said court the sum of $1,021.20 for the use of said John T. Taylor. An execution was sued out on the decree on the 25th day of October, 1900, and a motion, upon due notice, was filed by the Crown Coal & Tow Company to quash the same. Taylor accepted, and was paid the sum so paid to the clerk for his use as in full of all that was due to him under the decree and the contract accompanying the notice signed by himself, Adams, and Thomas, and had no further interest in the controversy. On a hearing of the motion the court ordered that upon payment to the clerk by November 5th of the sum of $1,359.72, in addition to the $1,021.20 theretofore paid, the sheriff should return the execution satisfied except as to costs, and that in default of such payment the execution should remain in full force, and said sum, if so paid, should remain in court until the court should determine who was entitled to receive it. The money was paid into court, and on the 26th day of November Bart S. Adams filed his petition and motion for a rule on the clerk to pay the same over to him, he claiming that the contract above quoted, between him and Thomas and Taylor, ‘was wholly without consideration, has not been observed by Thomas and Taylor,’ and that the charges for attorney's fees are improper and excessive. The fund remaining in the court was $1,359.72, and the interested parties, the appellant, Adams, and the appellees Thomas and the Crown Coal & Tow Company, voluntarily presented to the court their claims to receive it. The Crown Coal & Tow Company claimed that it had settled with Adams and paid the full amount to him before it was ordered to pay it into court, and that, therefore, this money ought to be returned to it. Appellee Thomas and Webb & Webb claimed that it ought to be paid to them, as Thomas' share under the agreement and Webb & Webb's fees, being the ‘fees and charges due on account thereof,’ provided for in the agreement. Adams contended, as stated in his motion, that the contract was wholly without consideration, and not kept by Thomas and Taylor, and that the attorney's fees of Webb & Webb were improper and excessive,...