{
  "id": 8500702,
  "name": "Samuel Polakow, Appellant, v. B. A. Leafgreen, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Polakow v. Leafgreen",
  "decision_date": "1913-04-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,080",
  "first_page": "566",
  "last_page": "569",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 Ill. App. 566"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3225178
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/185/0476-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 5799,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.467,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.267022623599536e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3866505344520086
    },
    "sha256": "63a0f6e722181599e1c87db010d70b4f9e01286c43c5f1d927f62c5e8e930068",
    "simhash": "1:38dae5eeb85edecb",
    "word_count": 990
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:56:36.464744+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Samuel Polakow, Appellant, v. B. A. Leafgreen, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice McSurely\ndelivered tlie opinion of the court.\nThis is an appeal from the order of the chancellor in the Circuit Court, touching the costs of a hearing before a master in chancery. The findings on this point in the decree entered by the court are as follows:\n\u201c7th. That pursuant to the stipulation of the parties to said cause the court finds that the just fee of the Master in Chancery for examining the issues referred to him, and reporting his conclusions thereon, is $300, and for taking the testimony of the defendant $68.25. \u2019 \u2019\nAppellant objects to the item of $68.25 allowed for taking the testimony of the defendant. It is not claimed that this amount is in excess of the fees allowed by statute for such services, but it is said that this item should be included in the amount of $300 allowed for examining the issues and reporting conclusions, because that was the agreement of the parties, as appears from the following stipulation:\n\u201cIt is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between the solicitors for the respective parties hereto that the Master\u2019s fee in the above entitled cause shall be taxed at the sum of Three Hundred Dollars ($300).\n(Signed) H. J. BoseNberg, Solicitor for Complainant.\n(Signed) Parker & Hagak, Solicitors for Defendant.\u201d\nIt is claimed that it was the understanding between the attorneys that $300 was to cover all the services of the master, including the tailing of testimony. Under the statute, masters are entitled to receive \u201cfor examining questions in issue referred to them, and reporting conclusions thereon, * * * such compensation as the court may deem just,\u201d and also a reasonable allowance not to exceed 15 cents per hundred words for taking testimony. It is apparent, therefore, that the amount of fees for taking testimony is fixed by statute and, as was said in Schnadt v. Davis, 185 Ill. 476 (484), \u201cno more can be legally demanded of the parties, or either of them, for or on account of such services. Nor has the court power to order the payment of a greater sum or allowance for such service.\u201d It is equally apparent that the fee for examining the issues referred to a master, and reporting conclusions thereon, is wholly within the discretion of the court, who fixes the compensation at an amount which he deems to be just. The solicitors have no power to bind the court by stipulating as to the amount of such fees. The basis of the court\u2019s allowance is the justness of the fees, and not the stipulation of the solicitors. In this case the court found \u201cthat the just fee of the Master in Chancery for examining the issues referred to him., and reporting his conclusions thereon, is $300.\u201d The words in the finding, \u201cpursuant to the stipulation,\u201d do not control the court, but merely serve the purpose of an estoppel of record upon the solicitors. Futhermore, the court found that it was not the agreement and understanding of the parties to the stipulation that $300 was to cover both the fee for examining the issues and reporting conclusions, and also for taking the testimony. This.appears from the language of the finding of the court. There is nothing before us indicating the agreement of the parties except the language of the stipulation. We must therefore assume that there was sufficient evidence before the chancellor to justify his finding as to the intent of the stipulation. We find no abuse of discretion by the chancellor, and therefore his conclusion will not be disturbed, and the decree in this respect will be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice McSurely"
      },
      {
        "text": "Fitch, J.,\ndissenting: I agree with the view expressed in the opinion of the majority of the court that \u201csolicitors have no power to bind the court by stipulating as to the amount of such (master\u2019s) fees,\u201d and I do not disagree with the chancellor\u2019s interpreta-tioH of tlie stipulation. But in my opinion, the words, \u201cpursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the court finds that the just fee of the master * * * is $300,\u201d etc., show affirmatively that the court made its finding in this respect solely upon the stipulation as construed by the court, and not upon evidence heard or upon its own knowledge of the value of such services. For this reason, I think the decree should be reversed and the cause remanded.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Fitch, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. J. BoseNberg, for appellant.",
      "Parker & HagaN, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Samuel Polakow, Appellant, v. B. A. Leafgreen, Appellee.\nGen. No. 17,080.\n1. Masters in chancery \u2014 stipulation of solicitors as to fees. Under the statute relating to the fees of masters, the fees for examining the issues and reporting conclusions are wholly within the court\u2019s discretion and the maximum fee for taking testimony is fixed, and the solicitors in a case have no power to hind the court hy stipulating as to the amount of such fees.\n2. Masters in chancery \u2014 effect of words in finding concerning a stipulation of solicitors as to fees. Where the solicitors in a case stipulate that the master\u2019s fees shall he three hundred dollars and the master finds the just fee for examining the issues and reporting his conclusions thereon to be three hundred dollars \u201cpursuant to the stipulation,\u201d such words do not control the court hut merely serve the purpose of an estoppel of record upon the solicitors.\n3. Appeals and errors \u2014 finding of chancellor. On appeal from an order as to the costs of a hearing before a master it must he assumed that there was sufficient evidence before the chancellor to justify his finding as to the intent of a stipulation as to such costs, where there is nothing before the court indicating the agreement except the language of the stipulation.\nFitch, J., dissenting.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Thomas G. Windes, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1910.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 3, 1913.\nH. J. BoseNberg, for appellant.\nParker & HagaN, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0566-01",
  "first_page_order": 584,
  "last_page_order": 587
}