Case ID: ill-app_188/html/0342-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Harris", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George D. Emery, Appellant, v. E. W. Hersh, Appellee.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Attorney and client, § 135
      
      —when finding as to terms of contrast of employment against weight of the evidence. In an action by an attorney for services rendered defendant in examining titles to land, giving advice regarding the titles and preparing forms for an issue of bonds, etc., where defendant claimed that he employed plaintiff after the bonds were issued to furnish a written opinion and that the agreement was that plaintiff should be paid out of a fund allowed by the owners of the land in case of a sale of the bonds, held that a finding of the trial court in favor of defendant was against the manifest weight of the evidence, there being no evidence that plaintiff had agreed to accept employment in the way claimed by defendant or any evidence to show that plaintiff knew of the arrangement or acquiesced in it.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jasper county; the Hon. Thomas M. Jett, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed July 28, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by George D. Emery against E. W. Hersh in assumpsit to recover for services rendered by plaintiff for defendant in examining titles to certain real estate, advising as to said titles and in preparing forms for the issue of bonds- and representing defendant in a transaction then pending for the issue and sale of bonds as his attorney. From a judgment entered on a finding by the trial court in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals.
    H. M. Kasserman and Duane Gaines, for appellant.
    Fithian & Kasserman, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Harris

delivered the opinion of the court.