{
  "id": 5641258,
  "name": "M. A. QAZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAFIQ ISMAIL, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Qazi v. Ismail",
  "decision_date": "1977-06-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 76-1341",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "273",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 271"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "303 N.E.2d 382",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ill. 2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2939210
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/55/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.E.2d 517",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill. App. 3d 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2525593
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "458"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/5/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 N.E.2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. App. 3d 254",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2504120
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "262"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/23/0254-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.E.2d 604",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill. App. 2d 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "331"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.E.2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill. App. 2d 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1601101
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "135"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/104/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 N.E.2d 1154",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5436041
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/65/0108-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 N.E.2d 260",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 114",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2963332
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "115"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/34/0114-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 N.E.2d 41",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "381 Ill. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2559525
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "553"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/381/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "343 N.E.2d 479",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1943,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. 2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2972054
      ],
      "year": 1943,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "442"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/62/0435-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.E.2d 860",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Ill. App. 2d 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1577238
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "302"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/125/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 N.E.2d 26",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. App. 3d 301",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2959655
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/34/0301-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 N.E.2d 886",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 2d 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2848905
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "364"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/42/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 N.E.2d 325",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2498593
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "590"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/29/0585-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.E.2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5426498
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/63/0128-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 423,
    "char_count": 6042,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.818338620820455e-07,
      "percentile": 0.898187693568235
    },
    "sha256": "e2001f43018d89fd59efe11c826fbceda85b0cb9aaa1552d3306be61ffc6a0a2",
    "simhash": "1:2e7128027ed19e6c",
    "word_count": 1020
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:01:05.304449+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "M. A. QAZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAFIQ ISMAIL, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE LINN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe plaintiff, M. A. Qazi, brought this action in the circuit court of Cook County against the defendant, Rafiq Ismail, to recover the balance due on a contract for the sale of a retail business. The issue for review is whether a provision of a contract requiring that the party violating the agreement be liable for \u201call costs and consequences,\u201d includes attorney\u2019s fees. The trial court held that it did not. We affirm.\nNo brief has been filed by the defendant-appellee. Nevertheless, this court will consider the case on the merits since the issue and the record are of such nature that it may be decided without the aid of appellee\u2019s brief. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Co. (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 128, 345 N.E.2d 493.\nOn July 27, 1974, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a contract for the sale of the Sultan\u2019s Harem, a retail establishment in Chicago, Illinois. The purchase price as adjusted was *5,750. The contract provided that *3,000 of the purchase price was to be paid upon signing the contract, and the balance was to be paid in installments of *1,000 each, and that the entire amount was to be paid by December 31, 1974.\nThe plaintiff alleged in the complaint that the defendant paid a total of *4,000 in installments, but only after the plaintiff retained an attorney, and that on July 18, 1975, the defendant gave plaintiff a written admission of a balance due of *1,750 and promised payment by November 18, 1975. On January 30, 1976, the plaintiff filed this action praying for the balance of *1,750 and attorney\u2019s fees of *1,508. In his answer, the defendant admitted making the written statement of owing *1,750. The court found for the plaintiff in that amount, but denied the claim for attorney\u2019s fees.\nThe plaintiff contends the contract provision contemplates the inclusion of attorney\u2019s fees. The relevant portion of the contract provides:\n\u201c14. In case of any disputes, the two parties will resort to reconciliation through a mediator. In case, these cannot be settled by negotiations, all disputes will be settled in a Chicago court according to the laws of Illinois prevailing at that time.\n# \u00bb #\n16. In case of any legal action arising out of the above default, the party in violation will be responsible for all costs and consequences.\u201d\nThe plaintiff contends he does not seek an award of attorney\u2019s fees under statutory authority or by operation of law as a part of the \u201ccosts,\u201d incident to a judicial proceeding. Rather, he seeks construction of the contract to include the award of attorney\u2019s fees, arguing that the contract specifically contemplates the possibility of legal action in paragraph 14, and that attorney\u2019s fees are part of the \u201cconsequences\u201d which arise from litigation as provided in paragraph 16.\nIn construing a contract the primary object is to give effect to the intention of the parties (Burns v. Ford Motor Co. (1974), 29 Ill. App. 3d 585, 590, 331 N.E.2d 325; Schek v. Chicago Transit Authority (1969), 42 Ill. 2d 362, 364, 247 N.E.2d 886), and the words used are to be given their usual, normal and natural meaning. Byron Material, Inc. v. Ashelford (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 301, 339 N.E.2d 26; Goble v. Central Security Mutual Insurance Co. (1970), 125 Ill. App. 2d 298, 302, 260 N.E.2d 860.\nThe well-established principle in this State is that attorney\u2019s fees and other costs of litigation are ordinarily not recoverable by the prevailing party unless specifically authorized by statute or contract. (Meyer v. Marshall (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 435, 442, 343 N.E.2d 479; Ritter v. Ritter (1943), 381 Ill. 549, 553, 46 N.E.2d 41; City of Chicago v. Fair Employment Practices Com. (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 114,115, 339 N.E.2d 260, affirmed, 65 Ill. 2d 108, 357 N.E.2d 1154.) There is no common law principle allowing attorney\u2019s fees either as costs or damages. People ex rel. Henderson v. Redfern (1968), 104 Ill. App. 2d 132, 135, 243 N.E.2d 252.\nStatutes which provide for the award of attorney\u2019s fees to a successful litigant do so only in specific language. In the case of Waller v. Board of. Education (1975), 28 Ill. App. 2d 328, 331, 328 N.E.2d 604, the court stated:\n\u201cThe legislature has in the past specifically provided for attorneys\u2019 fees where it wished to, and the courts have refused to interpret imprecise language as permitting attorneys\u2019 fees.\n* # #\nThe legislature has determined when attorney\u2019s fees should be awarded. It has been done by specific language such as listing \u2018attorney\u2019s fees\u2019 to overcome the common law rule. Where they have not used such specific language, the courts have consistently refused to give an expanded reading to the legislative language used.\u201d\nAlso see Insurance Co. of North America v. J. L. Hubbard Co. (1974), 23 Ill. App. 3d 254, 262, 318 N.E.2d 289, and City of Chicago v. Fair Employment Practices Com. (1975), 34 Ill. App. 3d 114, 339 N.E.2d 260, affirmed, 65 Ill. 2d 108, 357 N.E.2d 1154.\nSimilarly, in view of the established rule of statutory construction, we find that a court may not award attorney\u2019s fees as a matter of contractual construction in the absence of specific language. In the case of Reese v. Chicago, Burlington ir Quincy R.R. Co. (1972), 5 Ill. App. 3d 450, 458, 283 N.E.2d 517, affirmed, 55 Ill. 2d 356, 303 N.E.2d 382, in construing a contract of indemnity, the court held that expenses and attorney\u2019s fees are recoverable only where required by the specific terms of a written contract. In this case there was no evidence presented at the trial to indicate what the parties meant by the word \u201cconsequences,\u201d and we will not speculate that the meaning of that term included attorney\u2019s fees.\nFor these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDIERINGER, P. J., and ROMITI, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE LINN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John A. Hyde, of Calumet City, for appellant.",
      "No brief filed for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "M. A. QAZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RAFIQ ISMAIL, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 76-1341\nOpinion filed June 9, 1977.\nJohn A. Hyde, of Calumet City, for appellant.\nNo brief filed for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 293,
  "last_page_order": 295
}