The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1894-02-27
N DAVID HUNTERS ESTATE,
Young Dennis Donohoe Is Forced
to Give Way.
END OF A BITTER CONTEST.
Decided That the Revocation of the
British Consul's Power of At
torney Was Comprehensive.

The bitter controversy between the rival
law firms Of Chlckering. Thomas q
Gregory and Cormac & Donoboe over the
right to represent certain heirs TO the
David Hunter estate has been decided by
Judge Seawell in favor of the former firm.
According to the testimony introduced
Cormac d Donohoe were appointed the
attorneys for George Methren and Mary
CraicR, defendants in suit brought by
Mrs. Joan n. G. Hunter against the exec
0tors and heirs OF her late husbands
estate to establish a lost deed. which pur-
ported to have bsen executed in her favor
by her husband shortly before his death.
Mr.. Methren and Miss Craik, who are
among the numerous heirs to the estate,
and who reside in Scotland, gave power Of
attorney TO Dennis Donohoe, her Britannia
Malesty's Consul here. to represent their
interests. The appointment of Cormac 81
DoDohoe as attorneys was made by Consul
Donohoe IN Septemb Der, 1898, one month
after Mrs. Hunters suit was Instituted.
Unfortunately the power of attorney
given To Dennis DonobOe was revoked by
letter and letters of attorney sent by Mr..
Methren and Miss Crack to Ignatz Stein
hart and Philip LlienIhaI, under whose
appointment Chickerng & Co. claim to
represent the Scottish heirs. A suit for
ouDStlluttOu VI attorneys was commenced
and vigorously contested on both sides.
There was considerable bitterness of
feel ling displayed in this matter. Affida-
Wits " ere filed by the c0nLesting lawyers
on either side, in which all sorts of charges
were made. Chickering 81 Co. charged
young Lawyer Donohoe. who. by the way,
is the son CT the British Consul, with hav-
ing run into expense over visit TO Scot
land. and the name of an Edin burgh law
yer, Alexander Campbell, was brought up
in connection with the case. On the other
hand young DonOhOe explained his
visits TO Scotland were necessitated by
circumstances and that Chickering & Co.
had not given lair play in their attempts
to Gust him ana his partner from their
rightful position, to say the least of the
opprobrium attached thereto.
In opposition to the motion for subtitu-
ton IL was claimed that, although letters
were sent from Scotland rev0king the
power of Consul D0nohoe. yet that this
proceeding implied no revocation of the
appointment of Cormac and Donohoe as
attorneys. In the original power of attOr-
ney sent to the Consul the words used
included land to employ attorneys for and
on my behalf"
tudga SeaWell, however, held that an
appointment OF attorneys in such an in
stance was made simply for the purposes
of taking such proceedings as were neces-
Sary to enforce collection Of accounts on
| pointees were not empowered 10 defend
any suit that might be brought against.
| their clients. Again, the letter of attorney
| sent to Steinbart and Lilienlnai was
much broader in character than that held
by Consul DonohOe According to the
Code OF Civil Procedure, "unless the power
of agents is coupled with an interest in
the subject of the agency. it is terminated
as to every person having notice thereof
by it. revocation by the principal"
Judge Seawell thought that another proof
lay in the letter of Attorney Alexander
Campbell, dated August 9, 1893. in which
he wrote that he alone represented the
Scottish heirs, and no one else. The Judge
held that even if these statements were
untrue. yet The general tone of the
letter showed that Campbell was or had
been in close communication with his
alleged clients.
Lastly. Judge Seawell decided that the
very affidavit of Dennis Donohoe Jr., in
opposition 10 the motion for substitution,
showed very clearly that when young Dom
oboe went to Scotland he failed TO estap-
lish professional relations with Methren.
Under the circumstances, the prayer of
Chiekering, Thomas 81 Gregory to be sub
stituted as attorneys Tor the Scottish heirs
must DE granted.