Case ID: ill-app_195/html/0018-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Barnes", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

DeWitt C. Cregier, Custodian, Appellee, v. George Remus et al., Defendants. A. J. Bedard, Appellant.
    Gen. No. 20,863.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed October 5, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Bill of interpleader by DeWitt C. Cregier, as custodian of lost and stolen property for the department of police of the city of Chicago against George Bemus and A. J. Bedard, attorneys at law, who claimed title to jewelry taken from the person of a prisoner named Stone. It appeared that in July, 1912, Stone was arrested in Chicago, and gave Eemus one hundred dollars to procure a bondsman for him. Later he became a fugitive from justice and was arrested in Kansas City. Feeling under obligation to procure his return, Eemus paid the expenses of Higgins, a Chicago policeman, to bring the prisoner back to Chicago. The jewelry found on Stone when rearrested in Kansas City was handed over to Higgins and, on his return to Chicago, he delivered it to Cregier as such custodian. Eemus testified that when Stone was first arrested he agreed to pay him two hundred dollars as retainer out of which he was to pay the bondsman and expenses in the criminal case, and that after Stone paid the one hundred dollars aforesaid, he went to see Stone about the balance and Stone said that if Eemus would get him out of jail, he would pay the balance of one hundred dollars upon getting out, and he would give him the jewelry in question, but Eemus did not receive the jewelry from Stone at any time. On the contrary, it appears that Stone left the State when released from jail and took the jewelry with him, evidently with no intention of keeping his promise. After he was brought back to Chicago and lodged in jail, he engaged Bedard as his attorney and gave him a bill of sale of the jewelry of which Bedard promptly notified said custodian and the chief of police. Higgins testified that, while returning from Kansas City, the prisoner said the jewelry in question, then in custody of Higgins as officer, belonged to Eemus and directed him to deliver it to Eemus, but that later he offered it to him as the price of escape. Later still, Stone claimed the jewelry belonged to his wife. Eemus testified that he asked Stone why he “jumped” his bond, and that he replied that Eemus was secured by the jewelry fdr what he owed him. The prisoner denied both Higgins’ and Eemus ’ testimony. Before Higgins delivered the jewelry to Cregier, Remus gave Mm notice of Ms ownersMp. There was a finding and decree in Remus ’ favor, and Bedard appeals.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Assignments, § 36
      
      —when assignment not shown. Evidence held not to show an assignment, legal or equitable, of personal property by a client to an attorney, but rather a mere unfulfilled promise to deliver such property in the future.as security.
    2. Interpleader, § 19
      
      —when allowance of attorney’s fees erroneous. Allowance of a portion of complainant’s attorney’s fees on a bill of interpleader, which fees were taxed to one of the defendant’s, held error.
    King, Brower & Hurlbut, for appellant.
    George Remus, pro se; Morris K. Levinson, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.