{
  "id": 2757758,
  "name": "Augustus W. Mercer, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mercer v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1912-11-07",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,215",
  "first_page": "234",
  "last_page": "238",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 Ill. App. 234"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "92 Ill. App. 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5285452
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/92/0592-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ill. App. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        852713
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/10/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 Ill. 475",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3230252
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/187/0475-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ill. (Breese) 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Breese",
      "case_ids": [
        435562
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/1/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 Ill. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4689310
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/254/0524-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 382,
    "char_count": 7956,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8258001464992805e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7200132131255529
    },
    "sha256": "2ae448605a21f14ed4265e68d3cbbbb0b25b0b82ca01ea08366a8c9b3d76693e",
    "simhash": "1:79cacd69ad0bc33a",
    "word_count": 1356
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:56:54.106977+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Augustus W. Mercer, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nIn February, 1910, plaintiff in error, as administrator, recovered a judgment against the Chicago City Railway Company in the Superior Court for $1,000' for damages for wrongfully causing the death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate. After the judgment was entered the suit was settled and the Railway Company paid the plaintiff $600. Defendant in error, who was the plaintiff\u2019s attorney in that case, then filed his petition in the same case, alleging that without any agreement as to fees \u201cexcept what the court should allow,\u201d he brought the suit at the request of the plaintiff in 1907; that the case was tried by his office and was settled through his efforts subsequent to July 1, 1909; that the plaintiff had received $600 in settlement thereof, and had also received $75 in settlement of another suit, \u201cwhich said fund of $675 is now in the hands of the plaintiff for distribution; that as a result of said services, the petitioner\u2019s lien is attached to the said sum of $675 for a reasonable fee for said services, in accordance with the statutes in such case made and provided, and in pursuance of the notice of attorney\u2019s lien heretofore served * * 1 upon said defendant.\u201d The prayer of the petition is that the court \u201cdetermine his reasonable fee for said services and make it a lien on said fund.\u201d Upon a hearing, after due notice, the court entered an order finding that the petitioner was employed by the plaintiff to represent him in said cause \u201cfor a contingent fee of one-third of whatever amount might be collected by suit or settlement for his services as attorney at law;\u201d that he \u201csettled the cause of action of said plaintiff\u201d for $600, which sum \u201csaid Augustus W. Mercer received * * * with full notice that said lien of Theodore G. Case had attached to said money.\u201d The order then finds that said Case has a lien for $170 upon the money \u201cin the hands, possession and control of the said Augustus W. Mercer at the time the petition of said Theodore G. Case was filed herein,\u201d and orders and directs \u201cthat said Augustus W. Mercer pay over to the said Theodore G. Case said sum of $170 instanter.\u201d Later an order was entered directing an execution for $170 to be issued against the property of Mercer. From this order an appeal was prayed and allowed, and an appeal bond filed, which, however, was afterwards stricken from the files. Thereupon the plaintiff sued out this writ of error to reverse the order or judgment regarding attorney\u2019s fees, and assigns for error that the Superior Court had no jurisdiction over the intervening petition and no authority to enter any order in the matter.\nIt is urged that it was error to enter any order against Mercer individually in this case, for the reason that this suit was brought by him only as adminis: trator. Mercer, individually, was not a party to the suit; nor does the petition, as filed, seek to charge him with any individual liability. No rule was asked or entered against him, personally, to answer the petition, nor did he enter his personal appearance or file any answer. The court therefore, had no jurisdiction over Mercer individually. Moreover, the court\u2019s findings that Mercer (individually) received the amount paid in settlement, and that said amount was \u201cin the hands, possession and control of the said Augustus W. Mercer,\u201d do not agree with the averments of the petition, if, as the language employed signifies, the court intended to find that the money was in Mercer\u2019s hands and control as an individual and not as administrator. Upon such findings, the only proper order would have been the dismissal of the petition.\nIf, however, it could be conceded that the court, on such a petition and after due notice and opportunity to be heard, might enter an order against the person in whose manual custody the fund happens to be found, we think it is clear, from a consideration of the nature and extent of the lien created by the Attorney\u2019s Lien Act of 1909, that no such lien attaches to a fund recovered by an administrator for the benefit of the heirs of a deceased person. That the defendant from whom the fund is recovered may be required to account to the attorney if his rights are ignored after notice thereof was held in Standidge v. Chicago Railways Co., 254 Ill. 524. But the question here involved was not raised or discussed in that case. The lien here sought is against the plaintiff, who sued as administrator.\nThe Attorneys\u2019 Lien Act provides that \u201cattorneys at law shall have a lien upon all claims, demands and causes of action * * * which may be placed in their hands by their clients for suit or collection * * * for the amount of any fee which may have been agreed upon by and between such attorneys and their clients, or, in the absence of such agreement, for a reasonable fee, for the services of such attorneys,\u201d etc. The act further provides that \u201csuch lien shall attach to any verdict judgment or decree entered and to any money or property recovered,\u201d etc. These provisions (and especially the words italicized above) clearly imply that the \u201cclient\u201d who employs the attorney must have such authority over the cause of action and the money recovered thereon as entitles him lo bind the owners of the fund by his contract for the payment of attorneys\u2019 fees.\nThe law is well settled that an administrator has no such authority over funds or property in his hands as administrator, as will enable him to charge such funds or property, or the owners thereof, by his contracts. Such contracts, if made, merely create a personal liability against himself. Vincent v. Morrison, 1 Ill. (Breese) 227; Bauerle v. Long, 187 Ill. 475. This rule applies to contracts made by the administrator for the payment of attorneys\u2019 fees. Barker v. Kunkel, 10 Ill. App. 407; McAuley v. O\u2019Connor, 92 Ill. App. 592. Any judgment obtained by an attorney in a suit for the recovery of fees for services rendered to an administrator is erroneous if rendered against him as administrator. McAuley v. O\u2019Connor, supra.\nSince, therefore, neither the cause of action for which the suit was brought, nor the money recovered, belonged to Mercer personally, but to Mercer as administrator, and since Mercer, as such administrator, had no power to charge any funds or property in his hands as administrator with the payment of attorneys \u2019 fees, it follows that Mercer\u2019s contract with Case imposed no liability upon Mercer, as administrator, and therefore no lien attached to the money paid in settlement of the suit as against such administrator.\nThese views render it unnecessary for us to decide the question raised by counsel for plaintiff in error, as to whether the Lien Act is retroactive.\nFor the reasons stated, the order or judgment of the Superior Court entered upon the intervening petition of Theodore Q-. Case is reversed.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles A. Ward, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Theodore G. Case, defendant in error, pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Augustus W. Mercer, Administrator, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company.\nGen. No. 17,215.\n1. Attobney\u2019s lien\u2014administrator not liable individually. Where the attorney for plaintiff administrator, in an action for damages caused by death of plaintiff\u2019s intestate, obtains judgment, and settlement is paid to' plaintiff, and the attorney files an intervening petition to hare his fee for services made a lien on said fund, an order by the court that plaintiff pay the fees is. erroneous if intended against plaintiff as an individual.\n2. Attorney\u2019\u00bb lien\u2014does not apply to funds held by administrator. The Attorney\u2019s Lien Act of 1909 does not give an attorney a lien on funds held by an administrator, since the administrator has no authority to charge such funds with payment of attorney\u2019s fees.\nError to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Mabcus A. Kavanagh, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1910.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed November 7, 1912.\nCharles A. Ward, for plaintiff in error.\nTheodore G. Case, defendant in error, pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0234-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 256
}