#### Cora B. Hirtzel, Defendant in Error, v. Annie Ball, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,286.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed on remittitur.

Opinion filed April 10, 1917.

Rehearing' denied May 10, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Cora B. Hirtzel, plaintiff, against Annie Ball, defendant, to recover for the value of services *245rendered as an attorney. From a judgment for plaintiff for $600, defendant brings error.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Attorney and client, § 126 * —when agreement to pay usual fee implied. In the absence of an express agreement as to the amount of compensation to he paid an attorney for his services, there is an implied contract to pay the usual and customary fee.

2. Attorney and client, § 127*—when judgment for services excessive. In an action for attorney’s fees for services, rendered mostly in securing an abandonment of proceedings before the Board of Local Improvements under a resolution to pave an alley, where the plaintiff sued for $1,000 and the verdict was for $600, and two experienced attorneys testified that such services were worth from $800 to $1,000, and no evidence to the contrary was introduced, held that the judgment should be affirmed on a remittitur of $100.

3. Attorney and client, § 123*—what is effect of testimony of experts as to value of services of attorney. A court is not hound by the testimony of experts as to the value of services of an attorney, and should take into consideration its own knowledge of the value of such services

Heffron, Perkinson & Berlet, for plaintiff in error.

Felsenthal & Wilson, for defendant in error; David Levinson, of counsel.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.