{
  "id": 5099301,
  "name": "Warren J. Durham v. William Behrer et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Durham v. Behrer",
  "decision_date": "1894-07-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "564",
  "last_page": "566",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ill. App. 564"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "128 Ill. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5413215
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/128/0279-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3586,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3936785503710834
    },
    "sha256": "459896ef7c3bf70b4c6ae898076b5ba2e98433d39045469193b891f9cb869f5a",
    "simhash": "1:bd1a8fbcac16be82",
    "word_count": 628
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:51.601388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Warren J. Durham v. William Behrer et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis was a proceeding in chancery to foreclose a trust deed, which deed contained the following :\n\u201c How, if default be made in the payment of the said promissory note, or of any part thereof, or the interest thereon, or any part thereof, at the time and in the manner above specified for the payment thereof, etc., etc., on the application of the legal holder of said promissory note, * * * in his own name or otherwise, to file a bill or bills in any court having jurisdiction thereof against the said party of the first part, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, to obtain a decree for the sale and conveyance for the whole or any part of said premises for the purpose herein specified, by said party of the second part, as said trustee or as special commissioner, or otherwise, under order of court, and out of the proceeds of any such sale to first pay the costs of such suit, all costs of advertising, sale and conveyance, including the reasonable fees and commissions of said party of the second part, or person who may be appointed to execute this trust, and one hundred dollars attorney\u2019s and solicitor\u2019s fees.\u201d\n* -x- * * * -x- \u00ab\u25a0\n\u201cIn case of the death, resignation, removal from said Cook county, or other inability to act of said granted, * * * then Julius Stern, of said county, is hereby appointed and made successor in trust herein, with like power and authority as is hereby vested in said grantee. It is agreed that said grantor shall pay all costs and attorney\u2019s fees incurred or paid by said grantee or the holder or holders of said note, in any suit in which either of them may be plaintiff or defendant, by reason of being a party to this trust deed, or a holder of said note, and that the same shall be a lien on said premises, and may be included in any decree ordering the sale of said premises and taken out of the proceeds of any sale thereof.\u201d\nJohn C. Behrer filed the bill making appellant, William Behrer, as trustee, and Julius Stern, successor in trust, parties defendant. Julius' Stern acted as complainant\u2019s solicitor. The court in its decree allowed the complainant a solicitor\u2019s fee of \u00a7100. This is said to have been error.\nThe compensation allowed is not to Mr. Stern, as trustee, nor is it for any services rendered by him, as trustee; indeed he seems never to have rendered any such service, but to have had at the most only a mere right of succession to what appears to have been a naked trust.\nThe case of Cheltenham Improvement Co. v. Whitehead, 128 Ill. 279, is decisive of this; see also Heffronv. Gage, M, E. Reporter, March 30, 1894, p. 569.\nThe making of Mr. Stern a party defendant, did not prevent his acting as solicitor for complainant, nor does it afford a reason why the complainant should not be allowed a solicitor\u2019s fee.\nMr. Stern had no duties to discharge or interests to defend; he was a mere nominal defendant.\nThe decree of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. J. Durham, pro se.",
      "Julius Stern, attorney for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Warren J. Durham v. William Behrer et al.\n1. Attorney\u2019s Fees\u2014In Foreclosure Proceedings.\u2014A person named in a trust deed as a successor in trust, is not thereby prohibited from acting as an attorney in foreclosure proceedings, and a decree allowing him the stipulated solicitor\u2019s fees is proper.\nMemorandum.\u2014Foreclosure proceedings. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. William G-. Ewing, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1894,\nand affirmed.\nOpinion filed July 2, 1894.\nThe opinion states the case.\nW. J. Durham, pro se.\nJulius Stern, attorney for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0564-01",
  "first_page_order": 562,
  "last_page_order": 564
}