{
  "id": 5408103,
  "name": "Cora B. Hirtzel, Defendant in Error, v. Annie Ball, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hirtzel v. Ball",
  "decision_date": "1917-04-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,286",
  "first_page": "244",
  "last_page": "245",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ill. App. 244"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 1944,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.578,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.296287805729208e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27091540858173585
    },
    "sha256": "dc60f419d89ec79b1ad448b02a1f7e9da8cd826f091436a4fa27426fef15a5f2",
    "simhash": "1:ca7dcc35948fb6dc",
    "word_count": 326
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:46:37.056812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cora B. Hirtzel, Defendant in Error, v. Annie Ball, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Heffron, Perkinson & Berlet, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Felsenthal & Wilson, for defendant in error; David Levinson, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cora B. Hirtzel, Defendant in Error, v. Annie Ball, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,286.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nAffirmed on remittitur.\nOpinion filed April 10, 1917.\nRehearing' denied May 10, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Cora B. Hirtzel, plaintiff, against Annie Ball, defendant, to recover for the value of services rendered as an attorney. From a judgment for plaintiff for $600, defendant brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Attorney and client, \u00a7 126 \u2014when 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.\n2. Attorney and client, \u00a7 127*\u2014when judgment for services excessive. In an action for attorney\u2019s 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.\n3. Attorney and client, \u00a7 123*\u2014what 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\nHeffron, Perkinson & Berlet, for plaintiff in error.\nFelsenthal & Wilson, for defendant in error; David Levinson, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0244-01",
  "first_page_order": 272,
  "last_page_order": 273
}