Price v. Hay

Citations

• 132 Ill. 543
• 24 N.E. 620

Syllabus

<p>1. Attorney and client—contract of employment—where counsel actually employed procures assistant counsel. The acquiescence of a client in an attorney appearing and performing services in the case, is not legitimate evidence from which the jury may infer.an implied contract between them to pay for such services, where the client has before employed other counsel at a fixed fee, who is to employ such other assistance as he may desire. In such case, the client may have reason to believe the new counsel in the case is employed by the other counsel.</p> <p>2. Even if a litigant has not, by himself or agent, made an express contract with an attorney to assist in the case, yet if his agent authorizes such attorney to appear and take part in the management of the suit, the party litigant will be bound to pay such attorney what his services are reasonably worth; and it would be error, in an action to recover for such services, to exclude from the jury, by an instruction, all evidence tending to prove such retainer by the client’s authorized agent.</p>