{
  "id": 2898199,
  "name": "Frank J. Burns et al., Appellees, v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burns v. Illinois Central Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5,824",
  "first_page": "191",
  "last_page": "192",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 191"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "258 Ill. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4724630
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/258/0302-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 2772,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.537,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.02114797974916e-08,
      "percentile": 0.464892354728017
    },
    "sha256": "1b50f86af9f8970251f06d242fcc5a1005fb7e1ba040503c9110c6cc3488571d",
    "simhash": "1:4fc9cca2882da2fd",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank J. Burns et al., Appellees, v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice\nWhitney delivered the-opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hunter & Schneider, for appellant; John G. Drennan, of counsel.",
      "Frank J. Burns, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank J. Burns et al., Appellees, v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 5,824.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Kankakee county; the Hon. Charles B. Campbell, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1914.\nRehearing denied October 7, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nPetition \"by Frank J. Burns and others against the Illinois Central Railroad Company to enforce an attorney\u2019s lien. One Joe Lococo and his uncle employed petitioners to prosecute a claim against the defendant for personal injuries sustained by Lococo, and after a disagreement between the petitioners and the uncle the petitioners ceased to act and the matter was placed in the hands of another. The petitioners notified defendant by letter that they would expect a reasonable compensation in case of settlement. Thereafter the defendant settled with' Lococo but. his uncle procured another attorney to start suit. In the suit Lococo recovered a verdict for six thousand dollars, which was paid. Petitioners then filed the above mentioned petition for an attorney\u2019s lien and a decree was entered in their favor for two hundred dollars, fo reverse the decree, defendant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. ' Appeal and error, \u00a7 1002 \u2014when sufficiency of evidence t.g show party was not an attorney not preserved for, review. On ap: pe\u00e1l from a decree awarding an attorney\u2019s lien, defendants cannot raise the question that there was no proof to show that one of the petitioners was an attorney where such issue was not raised by answer to the petition.\n2. Infants, \u00a7 21*\u2014right to contract for. attorney\u2019s, serv.ic.es., .Attorney\u2019s services are necessaries for which a minor,' or his next friend, may make a binding agreement to pay a reasonable compensation.\n> 3. Attorney and client, \u00a7 53*\u2014evidence sufficient to show employment hy minor. Evidence held sufficient to show the employment of attorneys by a minor, wherb the minor lived at his uncle\u2019s house- and-the uncle engaged the attorneys, and afterwards one \u00f3f the attorneys' had several conversations with the minor and his uncle' at the latter\u2019s house.\n4. Attorney and client, \u00a7 146*\u2014sufficiency of notice for lien. Service of a notice for an attorney\u2019s lien by mail is insufficient, since personal service of notice is required.\nA former appeal was before the Supreme Court, on the ground that, a constitutional question was involved, in Burns v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 258 Ill. 302.\nHunter & Schneider, for appellant; John G. Drennan, of counsel.\nFrank J. Burns, for appellees.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0191-01",
  "first_page_order": 213,
  "last_page_order": 214
}