Modern legal research tools give attorneys access to cases from 1857!
But I’ll be damned to the third—no, fourth—circle of Hades if I can figure out what they mean:
So far as the contract proved relates to the prosecution of suits for the defendant, in the legal establishment of the rights intended to be purchased, and contemplates a participation in the advantage or profit to accrue from the purchase of the titles, and maintaining them at law, whether treated as a contingent fee for professional services, or as a part of the general undertaking to purchase, prosecute suits, and share in the profits, we can not discover that it is tainted with crime, or against the provisions of any statute, or that it contravenes any principle of public policy under our law.
Newkirk v. Cone, 18 Ill. 449, 453 (1857).
Side bar: There’s a comment to be made here about the de/evolution of language over time and whether my grandchildren will be able to understand my mellifluous writings. But IDK, whatever, Imma take a nap bc I’m wicked tired.