Singer v. Steele

• Decision Date: 16 June 1888
• Citation: 125 Ill. 426,17 N.E. 751
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: SINGER, NIMICK & CO. v. STEELE.

125 Ill. 426

17 N.E. 751

SINGER, NIMICK & CO.

v.STEELE.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1888.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Bill for an account filed by Singer, Nimick & Co., a corporation, against its attorney, Henry T. Steele, in the superior court of Cook county. The case was heard in that court before H. M. SHEPARD, J., and appealed to the appellate court of the First district, and thence by plaintiffs to this court.

Appellee, being appellants' employed attorney, cannot avoid liability for all collections made, or which might have been made, by turning the business over to another attorney, (Walker v. Stevens, 79 Ill. 193;Pearse v. Green, 1 Jac. & W. 135;) and for a stronger reason, when the business is intrusted to a law partner. Weeks, Attys. § 314.

Gardner, McFadon & Gardner, for appellants.

John McGaffey, for appellee.

SCOTT, J.

This appeal is from a judgment of affirmance by the appellate court of the decree rendered by the trial court in the case of Singer, Nimick & Co. against Henry T. Steele. The bill, as originally framed, prays for an account of all transactions of defendants in respect to the disposition made of certain notes taken from the Chicago Plow Manufacturing Company in exchange, or as collateral thereto, for complainants' claim against one N. S. Bouton, and of ‘all collections thereof made by him, or which, without his defaults, might have been received.’ The bill was afterwards amended, by leave of the court, by inserting in the place of ‘or which, without his defaults,’ as follows: ‘or which, without his willful defaults or neglect.’ It is seen the evidence was quite sufficient to warrant the interlocutory decree that was rendered. It proceeded on well-recognized equitable principles. The only questions that can arise as the case comes before this court are: (1) Whether defendant could rightfully charge additional compensation, under the circumstances, for the services of the person he employed to assist him about the business of complainants; and (2) whether any portion of complainant's claim was lost through the ‘willful default or neglect’ of defendant. It seems the relation of client and attorney existed between the parties to this litigation; and that, while such relations existed, complainants placed in the hands of defendant for collection a claim of $15,720 against N. S. Bouton. That claim was compromised by defendant with the debtor by taking, in the settlement, lands valued at about $7,500; cash, $1,120; and notes of the Chicago Plow Manufacturing Company for $7,200, which notes were made payable to the order of defendant for the convenience of collection. These notes became due and payable at stated periods. That settlement of the claim was fully approved by complainants, and no complaint is made on that ground. It was agreed defendant should receive $500 for his services in making that settlement, and for his further services in collecting the notes as they should fall due, and remitting the proceeds. That sum defendant retained out of funds in his hands, with the approval of complainants. At the time these notes were taken it was thought by all parties concerned the Chicago Plow Company was entirely solvent; but, before all the notes were paid, that company failed; and, in order to secure the notes in question, the company assigned certain claims it had against its customers to defendant and J. Blackburn Jones as collateral security for its unpaid notes to defendant for...