Case ID: ill-app_211/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Dever", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mesa Melon Growers Association et al., Appellants, v. Edward Byrnes, Appellee.
    Gen. No. 23,837.
    (Not to Ibe reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Pasties, § 33
      
       — what is purpose of intervention in cause. One who intervenes in a cause is simply let in for the purpose of establishing his right to the property or funds in dispute.
    2. Assignments, § 18* — what does not constitute equitable assignment •of fund to be recovered by attorney. Where there is an agreement by a party to pay his attorney a reasonable compensation for his legal services out of the proceeds of litigation, such agreement depending as it does upon the mere responsibility of the employer, does not operate as an equitable assignment of any portion of the fund sought to be recovered in the suit.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David F. Matchett, Judge, presiding.. Heard' in this court at the October term, 1917.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed May 13, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Petition of intervention, in an action by one Edward Byrnes, against Mesa Melon Growers Association, by Henry & Robinson, petitioners, against Edward Byrnes, respondent, to recover for legal services, petitioners seeking recovery for legal services rendered on behalf of Byrnes in such action, and in prior litigation in which Byrnes’ client was involved.. From a judgment in favor of respondent, petitioners appeal.
    Henry & Robinson, pro se.; M. G. C. Harris, of counsel, and Hugh O’Neill, for appellants.
    David K. Tone and H. J. Toner, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Dever

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Assignments, § 18 — when equitable assignment of interest of attorney in judgment not shown. Evidence held insufficient to show an equitable assignment by an attorney to other attorneys acting for him, in an action against a client for legal services, and in prior litigation in which the client was involved, of any interest in the judgment obtained in favor of the client.