
    Lewis Rinaker and Gustav E. Beerly, Defendants in Error, v. American Bond & Mortgage Company, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,138.
    (Not to Tbe reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry M. Fisher, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1915.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed March 9, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Intervening petition to enforce lien for attorney’s fees of Lewis Rinaker and Gustav E. Beerly, attorneys at law, against the American Bond & Mortgage Company, which was defendant in a suit brought by Tiny Johnson, plaintiff. From an order directing the defendant to pay petitioners $150, defendant brings error.
    Petitioners were employed by one Tiny Johnson to prosecute a claim against the American Bond & Mortgage Company. One of them acting for his firm did considerable work to effect a settlement of the claim before bringing suit therefor. A suit was finally commenced in which his said firm and another firm (the attorneys for the American Bond & Mortgage Company in this appeal) appeared as attorneys of record. Most, if not all of the work connected with the litigation thereafter was conducted by the latter firm, resulting in a judgment against the American Bond & Mortgage Company for $2,650.
    After commencement of the suit and prior to the rendition of the judgment, the petitioners served notice in due form on such judgment debtor of their claim to an attorney’s lien under the statute for the services they had performed and were to perform in the matter, and filed an intervening petition in said cause to enforce said lien. On the hearing thereof, the American Bond & Mortgage Company was ordered adjudged and directed to pay petitioners $150.
    There was evidence that the services rendered by petitioners were worth that sum. It was contended that the contract between petitioners and said Johnson called for an entire service, including prosecution of the suit, and that they abandoned the contract and thereby lost all right to compensation. This arose over the fact that the other legal firm was called in to aid defendants in error about the time the suit was commenced and conducted the trial without assistance from petitioners. Apparently the other firm was expected to conduct the trial, but it did not appear that petitioners did not perform all the services their client expected of them.
    Wilson & May, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    Attorney and client, § 138
      
      —when attorney entitled to lien for services. Where attorneys at law filing an intervening petition to enforce lien for attorneys’ fees were employed to prosecute a claim and did considerable work to effect a settlement of same, after which a suit, in which the petition was filed, was brought by other attorneys on such claim, and it did not appear that petitioners did not perform all the services their client, expected of them, held that such services on account of such claim and cause of action were sufficient to give a lien, within the purview of the statute, in such action.
    Gustav E. Beerly, pro se and Roy S. Gaskill, for defendants in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.  