The herald., 1893-09-03
H|NCKLEYS LEGAL SERVICES,
The Supreme Court Reverses u
Verdict He Obtained.
Light Thrown Upon Suits Started as
q Bluff.
Mr. Krug's Counter claims Discussed
The Ventura Superior Court
Reversed In tho Case of
Blumberg VS.. Birch.

There have been quite number OF
cases recently where the charges OF at
torney are questions that have to be
scrutinized by courts.
Acaae in point is one just decided by
the supreme court. 1t is the case OF A.
9. Hinckley, respondent, vs. August
Krug, appellant, which was tried be-
fore Judge Mckinley.
The opinion was received for filing
yesterday by Mr.. Sesnon, deputy su-
preme court clerk.
1t was an action to recover $675 for
services as attorney, alleged to have
been rendered by Mr.. Hinckley for the
defendant between June /, 1889, and
June 1, 1891, in prosecuting and defend
ing salts, and for like services in draw
ing divers conveyances end papers.
The defense was Q general denial and
six counter claims for damages alleged
to have been caused by the negligence
and incompetency of the plaintiff as at
torney, and of a demand for $125, money
due from plaintiff to defendant. The
case was tried before jury. which rem
dered general verdict aginst the de-
fendant for 1926.
The defendant Krug not only attempt
ed to recoup damages resulting from the
alleged negligence and incompetency OF
the defendant, but claimed that 1t justi-
fed him in discharging the plaintiff as
his attorney, and that he did 80 before
the services were completed; and fur
ther, that Hinckley had contracted to
perform the services for stipulated
amount. Upon this point the court
properly instructed the jury, the su-
preme court says, that under such cir
cumstances, the contract being for an
entirety, the plaintiff could not recover
for his services. The question of negli-
gence was therefore presented in two
ways. First, on claim to recover dam
ages, and as justification for the dis
charge OF the plaintiff as attorney before
the completion of the service.
The first alleged error consisted OF an
order striking out the first claim for
damages, on the ground that the aver
ments showed that the defendant was
not injured. This the supreme court
holds was correct, and reviews some Of
the testimony offered.
The opinion goes on to state that the
defendant asked the court to give the
following instruction:
IF an attorney brings an action that
he knows cannot be maintained, merely
for the purpose OF 'bluffing,' or 'bulldoz-
ing the defendant, he 10 guilty of un-
professional conduct, violates his oath
as an attorney, and cannot collect any
compensation for services rendered in
such action" This instruction the court
refused to give and the refusal Is as
signed as error in the appeal.
Mr.. Krug had q money demand against
a man named Thacker residing in Sc
attic. who had no property in this state.
A suit was begun by plaintiff against
Thacker as Krug's attorney. and sum-
mons taken out and published. Hehad
agreed to prosecute the action to judg-
ment but was discharged before iudg-
ment was entered. The defendant said
that Hinckley told him that such SER
vice would be good and that Judgment
could be sent to Seattle and collected
there.
But the plaintiff said he intimated no
such thing, and advised Krug against
bringing the suit. lie did say that, as
Krug insisted on bringing the suit, he
did the best he could. 1.-THE object"
Hinckley said, was not to recover any
property, but was for q bluff, to bull
doze, embarrass and confound those de-
fendants; and the publication of sum-
mons in that case was not for the pur-
pose of getting service on the parties.
The supreme court says this was not
unproiessional conduct, the suit being
upon just demand and no deceit being
practiced.
The defendant asked an instruction,
which was refused, that If the jury
found from the evidence that the plain
tiff attempted to serve the defendants in
the Thacker suit by publication, and
brought no property under the jurisdic-
ton of the court thereby, and believed
that the plaintiff advised the defendant
such service was good, they must find
against the plaintiff on his demand in
that suit.
The supreme court thinks this in
struction should have been given, and
concludes by holding that the judgment
and order should be reversed, and a new
trial granted.
THE CASE OF MR.. BLUMBERG.
In the case OLA. w. Blumberg, appal-
liant, vs. Cullum .Brich, respondent. a
Ventura suit, the supreme court reverses
the judgment of the superior court and
orders that the lower court overrule the
demurrer, which it had Sustained.
1t was suit upon promissory note
and for foreclosure ofthe mortgage given
as security.
Suit WAS begun December 10, 1890,
and summons WAS served on the de-
fendant by publication only, he being a
non-residento of the state and absent from
it. The defendant did not appear, and
after the time allowed by law for him to
appear and answer, his default was duly
entered by order of the court. The de-
cree of foreclosure was entered in the
usual form, and the property was duly
sold for $1,000. After its application to
the payment of the indebtedness there
remained still unpaid $l746. so, and a de.
iciency Judgment therefor was docketed.
The defendant demurrsd to the COM
plant and the demurrer was sustained.
The supreme court says that there
could be no doubt that the court ac.
quired jurisdiction by the constructive
service to ASCERTAIN the amount secured
by mortgage and make and enter a valid
decree Of foreclosure and sale of the
premises. 1t did not, however, thereby
acquire jurisdiction to enter or docket q
personal judgment against the defend.
ant for any deficiency left unpaid by
the proceeds of the sale. But notwith.
-. L-A ..-I~