#### Max Luster, Plaintiff in Error, v. Arthur Steingard, Defendant in Error.

Gen. No. 20,710.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Attorney and client, § 133 * —when burden on defendant to show negligence in action by attorney for services. In an action by an attorney to recover for services rendered in defending an action against defendant, where the defense is plaintiff’s negligence, the burden of showing such negligence is on defendant; and where no evidence of negligence is offered, but the jury finds a verdict for defendant, plaintiff’s motion for a new trial should be granted.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hugh X Kearns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 8, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Max Luster against Arthur Steingard to recover for services rendered in defending an action against defendant.

To reverse a judgment for defendant for two thousand dollars on the verdict of the jury, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.

Ernest C. Reniff, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vole. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Baker

delivered the opinion of the court.