
    No. 96—2210.
    The Union National Bank v. James M. Flower et al.
    This was indebitatus assumpsit, brought in the court below by appellees against the bank, appellant, to recover for services as attorneys, performed by the former, for and at the request of the latter. There was a trial of issues joined resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of tlie plaintiffs below, for $812.25, and defendant brings the record here by appeal. The case shows that the defendant, being in the banking business in the city of Chicago, the firm of Eddy, Harvey & Co. became its customer; that the latter failed, owing the defendant about $23,000; that after such failure, the defendant, through 'its president, employed the plaintiffs, who were practicing lawyers in said city, to undertake the collection of said indebtedness; that plaintiffs entered upon the performance of that undertaking, bringing one suit in the Federal and another in the State court against the members of the firm of Eddy, Harvey & Co., and performed considerable legal services in connection therewith, and the evidence shows that while such proceedings were pending an offer of compromise, at ninety cents on the dollar, of said indebtedness, was made on behalf of Eddy, Harvey & Co., through their attorneys, to plaintiffs, but that the defendant had declined to accept it. The evidence tended to show that such offer was the result of what the plaintiffs had done toward the discovery of a member of the firm of Eddy, Harvey & Co., who was individually of sufficient financial ability to quite insure the collection of the entire indebtedness in question. The court is of opinion that the evidence sustains the verdict.
    Judge below, Elliott Anthony.
    Attorneys, for appellant, Messrs. Frank J. Smith & Hblmer, and Mr. W. J. Herrick ;
    for appellee, Mr. Frederic üllmann.
    Opinion filed Jan. 6, 1886.
   Opinion Per Curiam.  