Chicago Building Society v. Haas

Citations

• 111 Ill. 176

Syllabus

<p>Y and client — betrayal of his clients interests by the attorney — remedy. An attorney at law, when acting in good faith and his client makes no objection to his management of the cause, has the power to waive or withdraw a defence and consent to judgment, but not to fraudulently sell out his client’s interests to the opposite party; and the courts will protect suitors from the treachery of their solicitors, as far as possible. 1. Attorney</p> <p>2. Same — impeaching decree for fraudulent collusion between one’s attorney and the adverse party. A litigant’s solicitor, for money received from the adverse party, entered into a stipulation for the entry of a decree against his client for a much larger sum than was due, without the knowledge or consent of the client, and withdrew a meritorious defence, and allowed a decree to be entered according to the corrupt agreement. The other party had notice of the solicitor’s want of authority and of his want of fidelity, before taking the decree: Held, that the decree should be set aside for fraud in procuring the same.</p> <p>3. Limitation — bill of review. A party has the same time in which to file a bill of review to set aside a decree as he has to prosecute a writ of error, unless there be special facts requiring more prompt action.</p>