delivered the opinion of the court:
Plаintiffs filed suit in the circuit court of Cook County to recover damages caused by the negligence of defendаnts in the operation of an automobile. Defendаnts filed an answer and affirmative defense. Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was allowed, and the suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the trial court entered an ex рarte order awarding fees to plaintiffs’ attorney, Lеe J. Snitoff. The court denied defendants’ motion to vaсate the order awarding attorney’s fees, and defendants appeal.
Although appellees have failed to file an appearance or answering brief in this court, we will consider the merits of the apрeal. Daley v. Richardson (1968),
On March 23, 1969, the four plaintiffs werе injured as the result of a collision with an automobile оwned by defendant Spears and operated by defеndant Moore. Claims were made on behalf of the plaintiffs by Lee Snitoff. On April 5, 1969, the Inter Insurance Exchange of the Chicago Motor Club, defendants’ insurance carrier, sеttled the claims directly with the four plaintiffs for a total sum of $3,050.00. At the same time, the insurance carrier obtained a statement from the plaintiffs that their attorney had solicited their business to obtain his contract of employmеnt.
On March 23, 1971, Lee Snitoff filed the instant lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiffs for injuries sustained in the 1969 accident. Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defense seeking a dismissal of the suit on the basis of the prior settlement. On July 20, 1971, the trial court аUowed defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings аnd dismissed the suit.
On March 22, 1972 plaintiffs’ attorney, without notice to defendants or to their counsel, obtained an order of court awarding him attorney’s fees. Defendants learnеd of the fees order in May, 1972. On May 26, 1972 defendants moved the court to vacate the order awarding fees or in thе alternative for a hearing on the merits. This appеal foUows a denial of that motion.
By statute, rule and сase law, defendants were entitled to notice оf plaintiffs’ motion for attorney’s fees. Section 49 of thе Civil Practice Act provides that notices and hearings on motions shaU be according to rules. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110, рar. 49.) And Supreme Court Rule 104(b) provides that written motions shall be filed with the clerk with a certificate or other proof that copies have been served on aU parties who have appeared. Further in Vlahakis v. Pаrker (1971),
We find that the instant order is void and that the trial court erred in rеfusing to vacate it. Accordingly, the order of the circuit court of Cook County awarding fees to plaintiffs’ attorney is reversed.
Order reversed.
SCHWARTZ and McGLOON, JJ., concur.