(Not to be reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Partition, § 119 * —when hill insufficient to entitle complainant to solicitor’s fees. In a partition proceeding where the original hill did not properly set forth the interest of the parties and omitted a necessary party, and it was only after answer was filed that the bill properly set forth the interest of all the owners, held that it *349was necessary for defendant to -employ counsel, and a decree awarding complainant solicitor’s fees was reversed.
*348Appeal from the Circuit Court of Coles county; the Hon. Mobton W. Thompson, Judge, presiding.
Heard in this court at the April term, 1913.
Reversed in part.
Opinion filed October 16, 1913.
Statement of the Case.
Bill filed by Ada Switzer against A. A. Honn for partition of certain lands. From a decree awarding complainant one hundred and fifty dollars as solicitor’s fees to be taxed as costs, defendant appeals.
An appeal from the decree granting the partition was taken to the Supreme Court where the decree was affirmed in Switzer v. Honn, 254 Ill. 621.
T. N. Cofer, for appellant.
Henley & Douglas, for appellee.
Mr. Justice Thompson
delivered the opinion of the court.
*3492. Partition, § 119 * —sufficiency of Mil to entitle complainant to solicitor’s fees. Solicitor’s fees will not be taxed against defendants in partition, where the original bill omitted necessary parties making it necessary for defendants to employ counsel to protect their interests. The bill should be so accurate that the parties defendant can safely allow a default to be taken against them.