Case v. Emerson-Brantingham Co.
| Citation | 269 Ill. 94,109 N.E. 671 |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 10043.,10043. |
| Parties | CASE v. EMERSON-BRANTINGHAM CO. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Appellate Court, First District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Adelor J. Petit, Judge.
Action by Frederick H. Case against the Emerson-Brantingham Company, in which George A. Donnelly petitioned to enforce an attorney's lien. Jodgment for petitioner was reversed on appeal to the Appellate Court, which granted a certificate of importance, and petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
Rankin, Howard & Donnelly, of Chicago, for appellant.
Ralph F. Potter, of Chicago, for appellee.
Frederick H. Case, by appellant as his attorney, brought suit in the circuit court of Cook county against the appellee for damages for personal injuries. Prior to bringing the suit Case and appellant had entered into a contract in writing by which appellant was to be paid for his services as attorney in the suit ‘a sum of money equal to one-half of whatever amount is received as damages out of said claim or cause of action.’ Appellant served notice on appellee of the terms of his contract with Case, claiming a lien by virtue of the Attorney's Lien Law of 1909 (Laws of 1909, p. 97). Thereafter appellee settled the suit with Case, without the knowledge or consent of appellant, for the sum of $160, and paid Case the entire amount. Appellee also notified appellant of the settlement, and tendered appellant the sum of $80, which amount appellee conceded the appellant was entitled to under this contract with Case, which sum appellant refused, and subsequently filed his petition to enforce his lien under the contract with Case, claiming $160. Appellee answered the petition, and again tendered the sum of $80. A trial was had, and judgment entered for $160 in favor of appellant, from which appellee prosecuted its appeal to the Appellate Court for First District, which court reversed the judgment of the circuit court and entered judgment in favor of the petitioner in the court below, appellant here, for $80, and assessed the costs against him. The Appellate Court granted a certificate of importance, and appellant has appealed to this court from the judgment of the Appellate Court, assigning as error the action of the Appellate Court in reversing the judgment of the circuit court.
The portion of the statute under which appellant claims 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.’
This enactment was first before this court in the case of Standidge v. Chicago Railways Co., 254 Ill. 524, 98 N. E. 963,40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 529, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 65, in which case we held the law was constitutional, and that, where an attorney had a contract with his client for one-third of the amount such client would recover in a suit for personal injuries, and the defendant to the suit settled the suit for $900 out of court and without the knowledge or consent of the attorney, the attorney was entitled to recover from the defendant 300. In the case of Sutton v. Chicago...
To continue reading
Request your trial