Baker v. Baker

• Decision Date: 19 April 1913
• Parties: BAKER et al. v. BAKER et al; Appeal of ANDERSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

258 Ill. 418

101 N.E. 587

BAKER et al.

v.BAKER et al;

Appeal of ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 19, 1913.

Appeal from Appellate Court, Second District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Grundy County; Edgar Eldridge, Judge.

Bill by Alva A. Baker and others against Charles H. Baker and others. Petition by D. R. Anderson, attorney for complainants, to enforce his statutory attorney's lien dismissed, and he appeals. Affirmed.

D. R. Anderson, of Joliet, and William H. Boys, of Streator, for appellant.

C. F. Hanson, of Morris, and Duncan, Doyle & O'Conor, of Ottawa, for appellees.

COOKE, J.

Appellant, D. R. Anderson, filed his petition in the circuit court of Grundy county, in a cause there pending in which he represented the complainants, to adjudicate the rights of the parties and to enforce his lien under the Attorney's Lien Act of 1909. On motion of appellees, the petition was dismissed. On appeal to the Appellate Court for the Second District, the order of the circuit court dismissing the petition was affirmed. A certificate of importance having been allowed, this appeal has been perfected.

On May 10, 1907, clients of appellant filed their bill in the circuit court of Grundy county to set aside the last will and testament of one Laura A. Gould, and appellees were made defendants to the bill. Prior to that time appellant had entered into a written contract with his clients for the payment to him of a stipulated percentage of any amount recovered or received in any way as the result of the litigation. Subsequent to the time that the Attorney's Lien Act of 1909 went into effect (the cause being still undisposed of) appellant served notice upon each of the appellees of his claim for lien under said act. Afterwards, without the knowledge of appellant, appellees settled the matter in controversy with the complainants in the bill, in which settlement the notice of appellant and his claim for a lien were ignored.

The sole question presented is whether an attorney is entitled to a lien for his fees when the employment and contract for fees were entered into prior to the passage of the Attorney's Lien Act. That act is as follows: ‘That attorneys at law shall have a lien upon all claims, demands and causes of action, including all claims for unliquidated damages, which may be placed in their hands by their clients for suit or collection, or upon which suit or action has been instituted, for the amount of any fee which may have been agreed upon by and between such attorneys and their clients, or, in the absence of such agreement, for a reasonable fee, for the services of such attorneys rendered or to be rendered for their clients on account of such suits, claims, demands or causes of action: Provided, however, such attorneys shall serve notice in writing upon the party against whom their clients may have such suits, claims or causes of action, claiming such lien and stating therein the interest they have in such suits, claims, demands or causes of action, and such lien shall attach to any verdict, judgment or decree entered and to any money or property which may be recovered, on account of such suits, claims, demands or causes of action, from and after the time of service of the aforesaid notice. On petition filed by such attorneys or their clients any court of competent jurisdiction shall, on not less than five days' notice to the adverse party, adjudicate the...