{
  "id": 5381309,
  "name": "Sanitary Hair Goods Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John G. Elliott, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sanitary Hair Goods Co. v. Elliott",
  "decision_date": "1915-03-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,593",
  "first_page": "563",
  "last_page": "563",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ill. App. 563"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1714,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.617883366814022e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4904938473246896
    },
    "sha256": "1171cf5b8b65eb2c29ce13f41a9b30b02f928c5048ba56277d7ac8058c3f941f",
    "simhash": "1:9378acb5908da428",
    "word_count": 279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:18:11.463405+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sanitary Hair Goods Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John G. Elliott, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Baker\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Baker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sidney E. Levy, Julius Limbach and George F. Ort, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Ashcraft & Ashcraft, for defendant in error; Charles F. Rathbun, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sanitary Hair Goods Company, Plaintiff in Error, v. John G. Elliott, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,593.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Attorney and client, \u00a7 81 \u2014when burden of proof is on client charging attorney with negligence and fraud. Where an action is brought against an attorney to recover fees paid him, on the ground that he was guilty of negligence and fraudulent conduct in prosecuting litigation for plaintiff, the burden is on plaintiff to establish such negligence and fraud, and the evidence examined and held that the burden was not sustained.\n2. Attorney and client, \u00a7 81*\u2014what good faith and diligence owed to client. All that an attorney owes his client is good faith and reasonable skill and diligence in the prosecution of the case.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Sanitary Hair Goods Company, a corporation, against John G. Elliott to recover one thousand five hundred dollars paid defendant as attorney\u2019s fees for the prosecution of litigation for plaintiff, on the ground that defendant was negligent, unfaithful and fraudulent in conducting and prosecuting such litigation.\nTo reverse the judgment on a verdict directed for defendant, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.\nSidney E. Levy, Julius Limbach and George F. Ort, for plaintiff in error.\nAshcraft & Ashcraft, for defendant in error; Charles F. Rathbun, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0563-01",
  "first_page_order": 607,
  "last_page_order": 607
}