delivered the opinion of the court.
Lemon v. Snell, 188 Ill. App. 101 (1914)
May 5, 1914
·
Illinois Appellate Court
188 Ill. App. 101
Frank K. Lemon, Defendant in Error, v. Richard Snell, Plaintiff in Error.
(Not to Tbe reported in full.)
Error to the Circuit Court of DeWitt county; the Hon. William G. Cochran, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1913.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed May 5, 1914.
Statement of the Case.
Action by Richard A. Lemon and Frank K. Lemon, partners, against Richard Snell to recover attorneys’ fees for services performed for defendant in litigation concerning the estate of Thomas Snell, deceased. After the suit was begun, Richard A. Lemon died and the suit was prosecuted in the name of Frank K. Lemon, surviving partner.
The claim of plaintiffs is for $15,000 for services rendered in the contest of the will of Thomas Snell, in which suit plaintiffs were attorneys for Richard Snell, contestant, and for $5,500 for services rendered *102in the estate for defendant as administrator after the suit to contest the will was terminated. A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $1,750, on which judgment was rendered. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Attorney and client, § 134 * —admissibility of evidence. In an action to recover attorneys’ fees permitting plaintiff to testify as to the value of services which had been rendered and paid for under an express contract, and permitting him to testify that a claim was made for further compensation for the services and that defendant had made an offer to give $1,500, held error, for the reason that defendant had settled for such services and that the offer to pay a further sum was a promise to malte a gift for which there was no consideration.
2. Attorney and client, § 127*—when amount of compensation not excessive. In an action for attorneys’ fees, a verdict for $1,750 held not excessive where the amount involved was large, and the questions in issue were bitterly contested and a clear preponderance of the evidence would have justified a larger verdict.
3. Appeal and error, § 1489*—when admission of improper evidence afterwards excluded not prejudicial. In an action to recover attorneys’ fees, the admission of impropper evidence which was afterwards excluded, held not prejudicial as influencing the jury to allow an excessive verdict where it appears that the jury on a consideration of the proper evidence could not have returned a verdict for a less amount.
Stone, Oglevee & Franklin, for plaintiff in error.
Herrick & Herrick, for defendant in error.