TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Reynolds v. McMillan

William W. Reynolds v. John N. McMillan

Reynolds v. McMillan, 63 Ill. 46 (1872)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1872
Citations
63 Ill. 46
Syllabus
1. Attorney’s pee—allowance for, in decree. Under the statute in a suit for partition or the assignmeut of dower, when no defense is set up, the court is authorized to order the payment of a reasonable attorney’s fee. 3. In fixing the amount of a reasonable fee, the examination should be directed to what is customary for such legal services, where contracts have been made'with persons competent to contract, and not what is reasonable, Just and proper for the solicitor in the particular case. The inquiry should not what an attorney thinks is reasonable, but what is the usual charge. 3. In determining the amount of such fee it is not merely the value of the estate partitioned, but the services performed, which should form the basis of remuneration. An attorney’s fee of $1000 in this case was held unreasonable.
Summary
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Macoupin county; the Hon. Edward Y. Rice, Judge, presiding.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam : We are of opinion that the proceedings in this case were amicable, and that the allowance of a solicitor’s fee is not prohibited by any rule laid down in Kilgour v. Crawford, 51 Ill. 250 . The infants were duly in court, and made no opposition to the prayer for partition. The statute gives to the circuit court the power to order a reasonable fee in all cases for partition or the assignment of dower, where there is no contest. The defendants below have the benefit of the partition, as well as the complainants, and should bear a just proportion of the costs.

But we do not think that the fee is reasonable for the services rendered, or that the mode of ascertaining it was a proper one, so far as is disclosed by the record.

Proceedings in partition are simple and require no great legal skill, but merely the ordinary attainments of a good clerk, and the exercise of reasonable care. All the labor rendered in this case was of a clerical character, and might have been performed,in one day. For such services the sum of §1000 is largely in excess of a reasonable compensation. It is not merely the value of the estate partitioned, but the services performed, which should form the basis of remuneration.

In fixing the amount of a reasonable fee, the examination should be directed to what is customary for such legal services where contracts have been made with persons competent to contract, and not what is reasonable, just and proper for the solicitor in the particular case. The inquiry should be, not what an attorney thinks is reasonable, but what is the usual charge.

Infants are the peculiar care of chancery, and courts should not hesitate to protect them against exorbitant fees.

The decree, as to the allowance of a solicitor’s fee of §1000, is reversed and the cause remanded.

Decree reversed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 22 cases

View all citing references →
1888: 11889: 11891: 11894: 11895: 11896: 11897: 31900: 11902: 21903: 21906: 11907: 11908: 11912: 11913: 11914: 11932: 11947: 118882026peak 1897 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Casler v. Byers28 Ill. App. 128 (1888)
  2. Metheny v. Bohn45 N.E. 1011 (Ill. 1897)
  3. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Wallace11 L.R.A. 787 (Ill. 1891)
  4. Amberson v. Amberson181 N.E. 825 (Ill. 1932)
  5. McMannomy v. Chicago, Danville & Vincennes Railroad47 N.E. 712 (Ill. 1897)
  6. Casler v. Byers22 N.E. 507 (Ill. 1889)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Thz Fo Farm37 Haw. 447 (1947)
  2. Amberson v. Amberson181 N.E. 825 (Ill. 1932)
  3. People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Gilbert263 Ill. 85 (1914)
  4. Gentleman v. Sanitary District103 N.E. 234 (Ill. 1913)
  5. Zentner v. Kozminski171 Ill. App. 570 (1912)
  6. Glynn v. Glynn139 Ill. App. 185 (1908)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list