Spiegel v. Frangoulis

3 Citing cases

  1. Hidell v. Int'l Diversified Investments

    520 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1975)   Cited 30 times
    In Hidell v. International Diversified Investments, 520 F.2d 529 (CA7 1975), for example, appellee had brought suit under the securities laws.

    While the record is unclear whether this in fact was the fee arrangement, the Illinois courts have not restricted recovery of fees under the Illinois Securities Act to preclude awards in such a case. Spiegel v. Frangoulis, 271 Ill.App. 526 (1933), relied on by the defendants in this regard, has been disapproved in the Securities Act context in the recent decision in Gowdy v. Richter, 20 Ill.App.3d 514, 530, 314 N.E.2d 549, 561 (1974). IV. The Counterclaim

  2. McPherson v. Hewitt

    335 N.E.2d 606 (Ill. App. Ct. 1975)   Cited 6 times
    In McPherson, the buyers' attorney wrote to the sellers and demanded proof that the transaction was not fraudulent. He received no reply. The attorney then contacted the Secretary of State and learned that the securities were unregistered. Concluding that the transaction was illegal, the attorney then (six days later) gave the sellers notice of the buyers' intent to rescind the sale.

    • 4 We now consider the propriety of the $2,000 award of attorney fees to McPherson and Read. Hewitt argues that the trial court's award of attorney fees was not based upon proof of the time expended by the plaintiffs' attorney or the reasonable value of the service in the community. On appeal, Hewitt relies upon Spiegel v. Frangoulis (1933), 271 Ill. App. 526, 531, for support. Spiegel dealt with the issue of whether a contingency fee agreement would bar the plaintiff from recovery of attorney fees under this Act. This is not what Hewitt is arguing.

  3. Gowdy v. Richter

    20 Ill. App. 3d 514 (Ill. App. Ct. 1974)   Cited 52 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that penal nature of the Illinois statute prevented in pari delicto and estoppel defenses

    The pertinent statutory provision is section 13A(2). It states that in addition to the full amount paid for the securities and interest, a purchaser of a voidable security is entitled to an award for "reasonable fees of such purchaser's attorney incurred in any action brought for recovery of the amounts recoverable hereunder." • 18 In Spiegel v. Frangoulis (1933), 271 Ill. App. 526, the only case in point, this court interpreted a provision of like substance and held that, where plaintiff's attorney is operating on a contingent fee basis with his client, separate damages for attorney's fees should not be awarded. The court stated at page 531: