Sanitary Hair Goods Co. v. Elliott
Sanitary Hair Goods Company, in Error v. John G. Elliott, in Error
Sanitary Hair Goods Co. v. Elliott, 191 Ill. App. 563 (1915)
Headnotes
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Attorney and client, § 81*—when burden of proof is on client charging attorney with negligence and fraud. Where an action is brought against an attorney to recover fees paid him, on the ground that he was guilty of negligence and fraudulent conduct in prosecuting litigation for plaintiff, the burden is on plaintiff to establish such negligence and fraud, and the evidence examined and held that the burden was not sustained.
2. Attorney and client, § 81*—what good faith and diligence owed to client. All that an attorney owes his client is good faith and reasonable skill and diligence in the prosecution of the case.
Summary
Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Charles A. Williams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.
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.
Mr. Justice Baker delivered the opinion of the court.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.