Nathan v. Peterson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Nathan v. Peterson

177 Ill. App. 104, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 1148

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedJanuary 28, 1913

DocketGen. No. 17,975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 177 Ill. App. 104 (Nathan v. Peterson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nathan v. Peterson, 177 Ill. App. 104, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 1148 (Ill. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee brought a suit to recover for services rendered as an attornéy. The declaration included the common counts and a count declaring on a contract for such services properly held by the court to be champertous. The only question arising upon the record is whether or not, proof having been given of the reasonable value of such services, he could recover under the common counts.

In some jurisdictions it is held that an attorney does not forfeit his right to full compensation for services by entering into a champertous contract. 6 Cyc. 880; 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 828. That doctrine was approved in Brush v. City of Carbondale, 229 Ill. 144. Had the proof in the case at bar been confined to the illegal contract and rendition of services thereunder, or had the contract been a necessary part of the case, there could have been no recovery, but if the champertous contract may be disregarded and recovery had on proof of the reasonable Value of the services rendered the right to recover under a quantum meruit would seem to follow. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellee brought a suit to recover for services rendered as an attornéy. The declaration included the common counts and a count declaring on a contract for such services properly held by the court to be champertous. The only question arising upon the record is whether or not, proof having been given of the reasonable value of such services, he could recover under the common counts.

In some jurisdictions it is held that an attorney does not forfeit his right to full compensation for services by entering into a champertous contract. 6 Cyc. 880; 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 828. That doctrine was approved in Brush v. City of Carbondale, 229 Ill. 144. Had the proof in the case at bar been confined to the illegal contract and rendition of services thereunder, or had the contract been a necessary part of the case, there could have been no recovery, but if the champertous contract may be disregarded and recovery had on proof of the reasonable Value of the services rendered the right to recover under a quantum meruit would seem to follow. The judgment is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 Ill. App. 104, 1913 Ill. App. LEXIS 1148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nathan-v-peterson-illappct-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack