Scott v. Harris
Citations
- 113 Ill. 447
- 1885 Ill. LEXIS 659
Syllabus
<p>1. Privileged communications— as between attorney and client-effect of death of the latter. Although statements made by a party to his attorney and legal adviser are privileged when offered in evidence against the client, if living, they are not privileged after his death, in an inquiry to ascertain, as between his devisees under his will and a grantee claiming under his deed made after the will, as to what he intended by his deed.</p> <p>2. But when the rights and interests of the client, and those claiming under him, and third persons, come in conflict, the privilege of communications to his attorney is not removed by the client’s death. In cases of testamentary disposition the rule seems to be otherwise.</p> <p>3. Same—effect of disclosure by the client himself. The privilege of secrecy as to communications to an attorney, is that of the client alone; and if the latter chooses to disclose what is communicated to his legal adviser in professional confidence, there is no rule of law to prohibit it.</p> <p>4. Where a party, after communicating to and advising with her attorney as to certain conveyances of land, directs him to inform the legatees under her husband’s will that the deeds to her from her husband, made subsequent to the execution of the will, had only been made to enable her to preserve the estate, and that if anything was left after the payment of the debts it was to be divided in accordance with the provisions of the will, and the attorney makes the communication to the legatees, such communications will not be privileged. The, admissions and statements of the attorney under such circumstances are the admissions and statements of the client.</p> <p>5. Tbusts—whether within the Statute of Frauds—of express and implied trusts. If a husband conveys his lands to his wife upon the express trust to enable her to better manage and preserve his estate, and to be applied by her in accordance with the provisions of his will, before made, and she agrees to car
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that while the attorney-client privilege typically survives the client’s death, “[i]n cases of testamentary disposition, the rule seems to be otherwise”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Scholfield
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
14 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Dickerson v. DickersonIllinois Supreme Court· 1926-10-28· cited 33×
- In re Young's EstateUtah Supreme Court· 1908-03-05· cited 33×
- O'Brien v. SpaldingSupreme Court of Georgia· 1897-08-10· cited 31×
- Wilkinson v. ServiceIllinois Supreme Court· 1911-02-25· cited 23×
- Norton v. ClarkIllinois Supreme Court· 1912-02-23· cited 23×
- Gould, Larson, Bennet, Wells & McDonnell, P.C. v. PanicoSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-04-12· cited 14×
- Gottemoller v. GottemollerAppellate Court of Illinois· 1976-04-14· cited 14×
- Galvin v. O'NeillIllinois Supreme Court· 1946-03-20· cited 12×
- Moore v. HorsleyIllinois Supreme Court· 1895-04-02· cited 9×
- Mason v. WillisAppellate Court of Illinois· 1945-07-11· cited 8×
- Stubbings v. StubbingsIllinois Supreme Court· 1911-02-25· cited 6×
- Richter v. GoldbergSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1922-03-03· cited 5×
- Estate of SnookCalifornia Superior Court, San Francisco County· 1897-09-20
- In re Will MagnesArapahoe County District Court· 1902-08-08
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.