Case ID: ill-app_209/html/0367-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice O’Connor", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Otto G. Ryden, Appellee, v. Harriet C. Hastings, by William G. Wise, Conservator, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 23,240. (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Attorney and client, § 128
      
      —when no recovery can he had for services performed at request of third person. Where the only evidence on the point shows that legal services for which recovery is sought were rendered at the request of plaintiff’s mother-in-law, who was defendant’s niece, and for her benefit, plaintiff cannot recover.
    2. Damages, § 250*—when erroneous verdict cannot he cured hy remittitur. In an action to recover for legal services rendered at different times, where the Appellate Court is unable to ascertain the charge made for services for which recovery could be had, the error in including such charges in the verdict and judgment for plaintiff cannot be cured by a remittitur.
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. H. Sterling Pomeroy, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed January 30, 1918.
    Rehearing denied February 13, 1918.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Otto G. Ryden, plaintiff, against Harriet C. Hastings, by William G. Wise, her conservator, defendant, to recover for legal services. From a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $200, defendant appeals.
    Worth E. Caylor, for appellant.
    Hoyne, O’Connor & Irwin, for appellee.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.