Case ID: ill-app_184/html/0036-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Clark", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward J. Welch, Appellee, v. Helen M. Newbold, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 18,818.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 2, 1913.
    Rehearing denied December 16, 1913.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Edward J. Welch against Helen M. Newbold upon an account stated made up of items of disbursements by plaintiff as attorney and business agent for defendant and including charges for professional services based upon a monthly compensation fixed by a written contract. From a judgment for plaintiff for $6,135.41, defendant appeals.
    Joseph B. Fleming, for appellant.
    Henry R. Rathbone, for appellee.
    
      Abstract of tie Decision.
    1. Municipal Coubt of Chicago, § 29
      
      —when refusal to require more specific statement of claim is not reviewed. The discretion vested in a trial judge in not requiring a more specific statement of claim was not abused where interrogatories and answers, as permitted under the practice of the Municipal Court of Chicago, were filed by the defendant.
    2. Evidence, § 164
      
      —when letter is not self-serving. Where an attorney writes to his client a letter in the nature of a demand for payment of his fees and disbursements and the client replies promising payment, his letter is not a self-serving declaration and both letters are admissible in evidence.
    3. Limitation of actions, § 117
      
      —when evidence is sufficient to show promise. Where in an action upon an account stated the plaintiff testifies he presented the account and was promised payment in part at a certain time and the balance later and is corroborated by another witness, which testimony is denied by the defendant, there is sufficient proof of the admission of the debt and a promise to pay so that the statute of limitations does not apply.
    4. Instructions, § 28
      
      —when oral instruction proper. Written instructions may be refused in the Municipal Court of Chicago, where the court determines to charge the jury orally.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.