{
  "id": 3021243,
  "name": "Mesa Melon Growers Association et al., Appellants, v. Edward Byrnes, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mesa Melon Growers Ass'n v. Byrnes",
  "decision_date": "1918-05-13",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,837",
  "first_page": "236",
  "last_page": "237",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 236"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2166,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "sha256": "ad9f72b29b84a4c683d6ff1f53f0138f1423cb47ec1fcf72169b4639e2e07a05",
    "simhash": "1:03d7c922db08a028",
    "word_count": 357
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mesa Melon Growers Association et al., Appellants, v. Edward Byrnes, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Dever\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Assignments, \u00a7 18 \u2014 when equitable assignment of interest of attorney in judgment not shown. Evidence held insufficient to show an equitable assignment by an attorney to other attorneys acting for him, in an action against a client for legal services, and in prior litigation in which the client was involved, of any interest in the judgment obtained in favor of the client.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Dever"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry & Robinson, pro se.; M. G. C. Harris, of counsel, and Hugh O\u2019Neill, for appellants.",
      "David K. Tone and H. J. Toner, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mesa Melon Growers Association et al., Appellants, v. Edward Byrnes, Appellee.\nGen. No. 23,837.\n(Not to Ibe reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Pasties, \u00a7 33 \u2014 what is purpose of intervention in cause. One who intervenes in a cause is simply let in for the purpose of establishing his right to the property or funds in dispute.\n2. Assignments, \u00a7 18* \u2014 what does not constitute equitable assignment \u2022of fund to be recovered by attorney. Where there is an agreement by a party to pay his attorney a reasonable compensation for his legal services out of the proceeds of litigation, such agreement depending as it does upon the mere responsibility of the employer, does not operate as an equitable assignment of any portion of the fund sought to be recovered in the suit.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. David F. Matchett, Judge, presiding.. Heard' in this court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 13, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nPetition of intervention, in an action by one Edward Byrnes, against Mesa Melon Growers Association, by Henry & Robinson, petitioners, against Edward Byrnes, respondent, to recover for legal services, petitioners seeking recovery for legal services rendered on behalf of Byrnes in such action, and in prior litigation in which Byrnes\u2019 client was involved.. From a judgment in favor of respondent, petitioners appeal.\nHenry & Robinson, pro se.; M. G. C. Harris, of counsel, and Hugh O\u2019Neill, for appellants.\nDavid K. Tone and H. J. Toner, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0236-01",
  "first_page_order": 290,
  "last_page_order": 291
}