Wright v. Fed. Wrecking Co. (In re Goldman)

• Citation: 73 N.E.2d 16,331 Ill.App. 231
• Decision Date: 22 May 1947
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 43865.
• Parties: WRIGHT v. FEDERAL WRECKING CO et al. Appeal of GOLDMAN.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

331 Ill.App. 231

73 N.E.2d 16

WRIGHT

v.FEDERAL WRECKING CO et al.

Appeal of GOLDMAN.

Gen. No. 43865.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

May 7, 1947.

Rehearing Denied May 22, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Burton A. Roeth, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Richmond Wright employee, opposed by Federal Wrecking Co. and others, wherein the employee and his attorneys filed a petition in the Circuit Court to cancel a satisfaction of judgment of record and that the employee and the attorneys be given credit for sum paid on account of the judgment. From an order cancelling the satisfaction of judgment except the amount paid, R. A. Goldman appeals.

Affirmed.

Laurence M. Fine, of Chicago, for appellatns.

David H. Caplow and C. A. Caplow, both of Chicago (C. A. Caplow, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

BURKE, Justice.

On December 29, 1943 the Industrial Commission of Illinois, by its arbitrator, entered an award that Richmond Wright, a resident of Chicago, was entitled to receive from the Federal Wrecking Company, a corporation, and R. A. Goldman, certain sums of money by virtue of the provisions of the Wormen's Compensation Act of Illinois. On October 19, 1944 the Commission ordered that the respondents pay to Wright the sum of $2,818.74, representing the accrued compensation payments, plus $1,409.37, being a penalty of 50%, or an aggregate sum of $4,228.11. On January 22, 1945 Wright filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Cook County, setting forth the record before the Industrial Commission and alleging that the name of the corporate defendant was changed to Federal Wrecking & Supply Company. The petitioner prayed that judgment be entered against R. A. Goldman, the Federal Wrecking Company, a corporation, and the Federal Wrecking & Supply Company, a corporation, in the sum of $4,228.11, plus costs and attorney's fees. On January 23, 1945 the Circuit Court entered judgment against the respondents for $4,728.11, which included the amount of the award and $500 allowed to petitioner as costs and attorney's fees. An execution issued on January 26, 1945, was returned unsatisfied by the sheriff on June 22, 1945. On November 11, 1945 a satisfaction of judgment signed by petitioner, acknowledging full satisfaction of the judgment and costs, and authorizing the clerk to satisfy the judgment of record, was filed.

On November 16, 1945 David H. Caplow, an attorney, filed a petition in the Circuit Court representing that he was the attorney for Wright; that he was entitled to a fee on a contingent basis of 20% of the amount of the award, plus the $500 allowed as attorney's fees, in the Circuit Court; that Laurence M. Fine, the attorney for respondents, was attempting to negotiate directly with Wright for the purpose of setting the judgment without notifying him, Caplow, and that Caplow was entitled to an attorney's lien. He asked that the court impress an attorney's lien in his favor for $1,445.62 ‘against’ the judgment. Notice of the filing of the petition was served on the respondents and on the petitioner Wright. The respondent, R. A. Goldman, answered the petition, asserting that Caplow could not maintain an attorney's lien in view of the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Sec. 158, Ch. 48, Ill.Rev.Stat.1943. The answer further stated that the judgment had been duly satisfied of record and denied that either he or his attorney, Mr. Fine, attempted to negotiate a settlement of the judgment; that on November 5, 1945 respondent called at attorney Fine's office and requested him to prepare the ‘requisite documents to evidence the mutual agreement between respondent and plaintiff to settle the judgment’; that the parties, including Wright, appeared before the Industrial Commission to effect a lump sum settlement; and that the Commission ‘upon objection by petition to their jurisdiction, which it had lost to the Circuit Court’, rejected the petition for consent to a settlement. Respondent asked that the petition be disallowed, or in the alternative, that the amount allowed be reduced to conform with the final sum recovered by plaintiff.

On January 14, 1946 Richmond Wright, with David H. Caplow and C. A. Caplow as his attorneys, filed a petition in the Circuit Court, representing that he hired David H. Caplow as his attorney to prosecute his claim for personal injuries while employee by respondents; that an award was made; that judgment was rendered in his favor in the Circuit Court; that on or about November 8, 1945 he was approached by R. A. Goldman, one of the respondents, who told petitioner that he wished to assist him financially; that he wished petitioner to meet with him, Goldman, at the office of attorney Fine; that on or about November 14, 1945 he met attorney Fine and respondent Goldman in the office of attorney Fine; that then attorney Fine tendered to him the sum of $350, partly in cash and partly by check; that attorney Fine asked him to sign a receipt ‘for the sum on account of the amount due under the judgment’; that he accepted the sum as payment on account of the sums due and owing under the judgment and affixed his signature to a document which he was informed was a receipt for the sum of $350; that he ‘has at this time been advised that the purported receipt to which he affixed his signature on November 14, 1945 was not a receipt for the $350 on account of the judgment, but that in fact such document purported to be a complete satisfaction of the judgment rendered in this cause; that petitioner was never advised by the said Laurence M. Fine, nor R. A. Goldman, that the document referred to and to which he had affixed his signature was a satisfaction of the judgment, petitioner having understood that such instrument was merely a receipt for sums received on account of the judgment; and that petitioner, while not illiterate, did not understand the wording and language of the instrument purported to be a satisfaction of the judgment.’ He prayed that the satisfaction of judgment of record be cancelled, annulled and expunged from the records, that respondents be given credit for the $350 paid on account of the judgment, and that he have such further relief as may seem meet.

R. A. Goldman, answering, admitted meeting petitioner on or about November 8, 1945; stated that such meeting was ‘at the importunities of petitioner’; denied that attorney Fine at any time tendered Wright the sum of $350 or any other sum ‘as set forth in the petition’; denies that Wright was asked to sign a receipt therefor; denies that Wright was advised that the document which he signed was merely a receipt for $350 and not a complete satisfaction; asserts that Wright for many years prior to the occasion ‘importuned’ respondent to pay him the sum of $350 in full satisfaction of the judgment; that at the office of attorney Fine, he, Wright, again requested payment of $350 ‘in full of said judgment’; that at that time respondent acceded to Wright's ‘importunit...