{
  "id": 2420162,
  "name": "Charles B. Phillips v. E. A. Sherburne",
  "name_abbreviation": "Phillips v. Sherburne",
  "decision_date": "1889-03-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "327",
  "last_page": "327",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 327"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        428255
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/38/0065-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 127,
    "char_count": 1413,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08072961010468178
    },
    "sha256": "70c837664213b5ee616b3b0915715d066f04b9de90cf530779e5d9390a3a2368",
    "simhash": "1:03c48b91c19b62eb",
    "word_count": 249
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:08.632983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Charles B. Phillips v. E. A. Sherburne."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gary, J.\nThis is another of the cases in which intervening petitioners have been allowed claims against a fund in court, paid in by the commissioners of the South Park for the use of appellant.\nIt is conceded that the only question in it not decided in other cases, is upon the withdrawal by the appellee from the prosecution and defense of the eases of the appellant, the claim being for attorney fees. Upon the evidence, it was a question whether that was a voluntary withdrawal or an acceptance of a previous discharge, with a preponderance of the testimony in favor of the latter view. The appellant had assigned $3,000 of the fund to the appellee to secure his fees, and could not take away that security by discharging him.\nThe case of Morgan v. Roberts, 38 Ill. 65, is not parallel.\nDecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gary, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. John Gibbons, for appellant.",
      "Mr. E. A. Sherburne, in person."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Charles B. Phillips v. E. A. Sherburne.\nAttorney and Client\u2014Assignment\u2014Discharge.\nUpon an intervening petition by an attorney to reach a fund in court, in order to secure fees claimed to be due him, it is held: That the evidence sustains the view that the petitioner was discharged from the service of the appellant; and that such discharge did not take away the securitj\u2019, in the form of an assignment, for his fees.\n[Opinion filed March 13, 1889.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Lorin C. Collins, Judge, presiding.\nMr. John Gibbons, for appellant.\nMr. E. A. Sherburne, in person."
  },
  "file_name": "0327-01",
  "first_page_order": 323,
  "last_page_order": 323
}
