#### Frank L. Tuttle, Appellee, v. Helen M. Newbold, Appellant.

Gen. No. 18,825.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Jacob H. Hopkins, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 2, 1913.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Frank L. Tuttle against Helen M. New-bold to recover on a claim for services and disburse*38ments alleged to have been performed and made by one Welch. Plaintiff sues as assignee of said claim. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for $1,409.79, defendant appeals.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Account, action on, § 1*—when verdict sustained by the evidence. In an action to recover on an account for services and disbursements assigned to plaintiff, a verdict for plaintiff held not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

2. Evidence, § 164*—when letter is not self-serving. Where an attorney writes to his client letters in the nature of demands for payment of his fees and disbursements, and the client replies promising payment, the attorney’s letters are not inadmissible, in an action to recover for his services, as self-serving declarations and the client’s letters are admissible as admissions. Following Welch v. Newbold, Gen. No. 18,818, ante. p. 36.

Joseph B. Fleming, for appellant.

Henry R. Rathbone, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Clark

delivered the opinion of the court.