#### E. Meers, Appellee, v. Edward J. Daley, Appellant.

Gen. No. 6,244.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will county; the Hon. Asthtjb W. De Selm, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 12, 1916.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court (making opinion final).

Statement of the Case.

Action by E. Meers, plaintiff, against Edward J. Daley, defendant, to recover fees for professional legal services. From a judgment for plaintiff for $2,000, defendant appeals.

0 ’Donnell, Donovan & Brat, for appellant; J. L. O’Donnell, of counsel.

Edward B. NTadelhoffer, for appellee.

*516Abstract of the Decision.

1. Attorney and client, § 134 * —what weight should he given hy jury to testimony of experts as to value of professional services. The opinion of attorneys testifying as experts as to the value of professional legal services rendered by an attorney should be considered as merely advisory to the jury in an action to recover for such services to aid them in forming their own judgment concerning the amount properly to be allowed for such services, and they should use their own knowledge and judgment based upon all of the evidence as to what would be reasonable compensation thérefor.

2. Instructions, § 87 * —when on preponderance of 'evidence deemed not erroneous. An instruction that a slight preponderance only of the evidence in favor- of the plaintiff would be sufficient to warrant a finding in his favor, held proper-and not misleading, in an action to recover fees for professional legal services wherein several attorneys testified as experts and the finding of the jury was less than the amount testified to by such witnesses.

3. Attorney and client, § 135 * —when verdict in action for legal services is not excessive.' In an action to recover fees for professional legal services rendered, where plaintiff was retained as solicitor for defendant in a suit against defendant and others to set aside a will disposing of an estate valued, at $150,000, under which defendant was the principal beneficiary, in which suit plaintiff had leading charge of the defense litigation, and performed valuable and successful service, and which resulted in a settlement quite favorable to defendant’s interests, and on account of which services plaintiff had received $500, held that a judgment for $2,000 was not excessive.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.