Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

102 Ill. App. 649

Cameron v. Boeger

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided July 2, 1902

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1902-07-02

<p>1. Parties—To Suits in Chancery.—In chancery, suits are properly conducted in the names of the real parties in interest.</p> <p>2. Assignment—Distinction Between, and a Mere Promise to Pay a Part of a Debt out of a Fund When Collected.—The distinction between an assignment or actual appropriation of a fund, or some portion of it, and a mere promise to pay a debt out of such fund when collected, is clearly pointed out in Wyman v. Snyder, 112 Ill. 99, and other cases cited in the opinion.</p> <p>3. Attorneys at Law— Have No Lien for Their Fees.—An attorney at law has, in this State, no lien for his fees, and his client may dismiss his suit when he pleases.</p>

Relies on North Chicago Street Railroad v. Ackley · Henchey v. City of Chicago · Story v. Hull

Affirmed · Decided 1902-07-02

Mr. Justice Waterman

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2If the petitioners under their agreement with the Cemetery Company, or anything done thereunder, became possessed of an interest in the subject-matter of the suit, they could and properly should have made themselves parties thereto. In chancery, suits are properly conducted in the name of the real parties in interest.

¶3Did petitioners have an interest in the subject-matter of the suit? The agreement with petitioners was not an assignment to them of any portion of the subject-matter of the suit or that which might be obtained thereunder."

¶4The agreement was, that petitioners should receive from the Oakland Cemetery Association and William Bauguth a certain portion of whatever should be obtained or realized as the result of the litigation, or if any. settlement was made pending the litigation, petitioners were to receive the same proportion of that obtained by settlement. A settlement by the complainants was clearly contemplated by the agreement with petitioners. The distinction between an assignment or actual appropriation of the fund, or some portion of it, and a mere promise to pay a part tif a debt or fund out of the fund when collected, is clearly pointed out in Wyman v. Snyder, 112 Ill. 99-103; Story v. Hull et al., 143 Ill. 506-511; Bromell v. Turner, 37 Ill. App. 561; Trist v. Child, 21 Wallace, 441-447; Christmas v. Russell, 14 Wallace, 69, and Pomeroy’s Equity Jurisprudence, Section 1280.

¶5An attorney has in this State no lien for his fees and the client can dismiss his suit when he will. Henchey v. The City of Chicago, 41 Ill. 136; North Chicago Street Ry. Co. v. Ackley, 171 Ill. 100-113.

¶6The petitioners ask that in opposition to the wish of the complainants they be permitted to prosecute this suit; they insist that the complainants could not settle this litigation without the consent of their solicitors, because the complainants have agreed to give them a certain portion of that which may be recovered in the suit. There was no assignment of any portion of the fund to petitioners or any of them: They therefore have not shown themselves to be entitled to be made parties to the suit in which they were solicitors.

¶7The decree and order of the Superior Court is affirmed. •

¶8Hr. Justice Freeman dissents.

/102/illapp/649 · .json · Public domain