Case ID: ill-app_195/html/0506-01.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

Josiah Cratty, Defendant in Error, v. William F. Buker, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No, 20,401.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John J. Sullivan, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 8, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Josiah Cratty, plaintiff, against William F. Buker, defendant, to recover on a contract for professional services as an attorney at law. To reverse a judgment for plaintiff for $343.40, defendant prosecutes this writ of error.
    Plaintiff is an attorney at law, and was retained by the defendant to represent him in a certain litigation then pending in the Superior Court of Cook county. It was agreed that plaintiff should receive $5 per hour for the time necessarily employed. January 26, 1912, a memorandum of the agreement was signed by the defendant, which stated that $100 had been paid as a retainer, and that the fees earned should be “paid as fast as can be, and secured on Buker’s Estate.” In accordance with the agreement, plaintiff proceeded to represent the defendant in the case in the Superior Court, and continued to do so until some time in July, 1912. At that time plaintiff claimed he had been necessarily engaged 127% hours in the litigation, and requested that the defendant secure him for his fees before proceeding further. At the time of the request the amount of his services rendered had not been computed. Plaintiff requested that he be secured on the interest which the defendant had in the property involved in the case in the Superior Court, the security to cover the services rendered and to be rendered. The defendant refused to do so, stating that as he did not know the amount of plaintiff’s bill, he was unwilling to give the security. Thereupon plaintiff said he would have nothing further to do with the case.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Trial, § 183
      
      —when motion for peremptory instruction must he made. A motion for a peremptory instruction made at the close of plaintiff’s evidence and denied is waived unless renewed at the close of all the evidence.
    2. Appeal and error, § 1410
      
      —when verdict will not he set aside as against weight of evidence. A verdict will not be set aside on review of the judgment unless it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
    3. Attorney and client, § 135
      
      —sufficiency of evidence to sustain verdict for fees. In an action to recover on a contract for professional services as attorney at law, a judgment for plaintiff held sustained by the evidence.
    Thomas W. Prindeville, for plaintiff in error; Jay C. Lytle, of counsel.
    Charles Hudson, for defendant in error.
    
      
      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.