Case ID: ill-app_207/html/0394-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Matchett", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles S. Rieman, Defendant in Error, v. Edward W. Morrison, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 22,549.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry Olson, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.
    Affirmed on remittitur; otherwise reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed October 9, 1917.
    Rehearing denied October 20, 1917.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Charles S. Rieman, plaintiff, against Edward W. Morrison, defendant, to recover on a contract for service as attorney. From a judgment for plaintiff for $90,188.01, defendant brings error.
    The contract upon which the action was brought was considered in 184 Ill. App. 20, and also in 264 Ill. 279.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Evidence, § 351
      
       — when parol evidence is admissible. Where a contract which is the basis of litigation is not clear as to the subject-matter, parol evidence on such point is admissible.
    2. Attorney and client, § 135* — what property shown to be subject of contract for services. In an action by an attorney to recover on a contract for a percentage of all property recovered by plaintiff, or through information furnished by him, from persons wrongfully withholding it from defendant, evidence held, sufficient to show that the contract covered a large amount of cash, bonds, real estate and other property which had been obtained from the wife of defendant by certain friends and servants of the family.
    3. Attorney and client, § 135* — what must be shown in action to recover on contract for services for recovering or aiding in recovering property urrongfully withheld from client. In an action by an attorney on a contract for a percentage of all property recovered by plaintiff, or through information furnished by him from persons wrongfully withholding it from defendant, it must be shown that the property for the recovery of which compensation is claimed was wrongfully withheld from defendant by others, and that the property has either been recovered by defendant, or it might have been recovered if he had availed himself of the help and information of plaintiff.
    4. Attorney and client, § 135* — when evidence insufficient to show that property of client was wrongfully uñthheld from him by third persons. In an action by an attorney on a contract for a percentage of all property recovered by plaintiff, or through information furnished by him, from persons wrongfully withholding it from • defendant, evidence held insufficient to show that certain bonds and money in the savings account of third persons were wrongfully withheld from defendant at the time of the execution of the contract.
    James R. Ward, for plaintiff in error.
    Fyffe, Ryner & Dale, Daniel W. Scanlan and Cola Gr. Parker, for defendant in error; Ira Ryner and Cola Gr. Parker, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.