Rector v. Duntley Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Court of Illinois

Rector v. Duntley Manufacturing Co.

189 Ill. App. 562

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedNovember 25, 1914

DocketGen. No. 18,913

StatusPublished

This text of 189 Ill. App. 562 (Rector v. Duntley Manufacturing Co.) 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

Rector v. Duntley Manufacturing Co., 189 Ill. App. 562 (Ill. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Attorney and client, § 79*—when defense of improper advice not available in action for compensation. In an action by a copartnership for professional services rendered as patent attorneys, a contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs’ improper advice prevented a settlement of litigation instituted for infringement of certain patents had no substantial basis in the evidence, it appearing that the advice in question was sound in law and in fact. 7. Interest, § 23*—when allowed. In an action by copartners for professional services rendered as patent attorneys, the allowance of interest because of unreasonable and vexatious delay in the payment of the claim was proper, it appearing that the good faith of defendant in finally refusing and resisting payment was discredited by the evidence.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.

6. Attorney and client, § 79*—when defense of improper advice not available in action for compensation. In an action by a copartnership for professional services rendered as patent attorneys, a contention of the defendant that the plaintiffs’ improper advice prevented a settlement of litigation instituted for infringement of certain patents had no substantial basis in the evidence, it appearing that the advice in question was sound in law and in fact. 7. Interest, § 23*—when allowed. In an action by copartners for professional services rendered as patent attorneys, the allowance of interest because of unreasonable and vexatious delay in the payment of the claim was proper, it appearing that the good faith of defendant in finally refusing and resisting payment was discredited by the evidence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 Ill. App. 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rector-v-duntley-manufacturing-co-illappct-1914.