The San Francisco call., 1896-09-27


81, 100000.
"That at the time of the execution of
the last OF the two agreements and at the
time of the making of the order the absent
heirs were four OF the brothers and sisters
of the decedent, who lived in the province
of Alsace, Germany, and who took under
the will four-fifths of the half of his estate.
The other fifth was at that time, and had
been since the death of the decedent and
up to the present time, represented by
Henry Lux and his three children, all of
whom have been during that time resi-
dents of the county of Santa Clara, in this
State.
THAT early in July, 1896. the whole
partnership property of Miller d Lux did
not exceed 10,000 900.
THE circumstances under which the
agreement of January, 1888, and july,
1890, and the order dated July 81, 1890,
were made are as follows:
"In 1887 Henry Lux, the only brother
of the decedent who had ever been in this
State, was resident of San Jose, and had
been Tor many years on terms OF great
intimacy with one Louis Krumb, a
breeder in that place. Aftar his brother S
death Henry Lux, for himself and as at
torney-in-fact for the German heirs, en-
ployed Louis Krumb to assist him IN
managing and protecting their interests
in the estate of the decedent for which he
" as ~ ISCclNc dul pie
THAT while acting as such agent Krumb
Nwas employed by said Henry Lux for him
self and the other German heirs to lind
and recommend the best and most desir-
able attorney y-at-law that could be en-
ployed, at the most reasonable sum, to
protect the interests of said German heirs
in all the legal proceedings in said estate
in which they might be interested.
"Krumh, acting under this employment,
called upon James II. Campbell, then a
practlcing attorney in San Jose, and pro-
posed to Campbell to recommend him to
the German heirs as their attorney and
secure If possible his employment by
them, upon condition, however. that said
Campbell would pay him. said Krumb, 40
per cent of whatever fee Campbell should
receive Cor his services for them, and that
Cam pbell would fix percentage of the
share of the esta te belonging to the heirs,
which he, Campbell, would demand for
his fee, and should add thereto two-thirds
thereof in addition, and then demand the
total from the German heirs as his fee,
and then upon the final payment and di-
vision pay over to said Krumb two-thirds
of the whole, as said Krumb's com pensa-
ton for procuring Campbelrs employ
ment. And to all these propositions
Campbell agreed and Krumb recon-
mended Campbell to Henry Lux as the
most fit and proper person to be employed,
dnO upOu tue lDOSl IOT b1S
German heirs in the estate to represent
and protect their interests, but sedulously
and purposely concealed from Henry Lux
the bargain he had made with Campbell.
Henry Lux, having entire faith in the
Integrity of said Krumb. and In utter ig-
norance OF the bargain between Krumb b
and Campbell, though at first reluctant to
do so, finally consented to employ Camp
bell to represent the interests of himself
and the German heirs, and to pay
him 3 per cent of whatever the
German heirs should ultimately re-
ceive from the estate, which agreement
was reduced to writing, and which was
the first agreement herein offered in evi
dence. to wit: the agreement of the 9Th
day of January, 1888.
THAT Henry Lux, at the time of entering
into and signing this agreement, was still
kept in utter ignorance both by Krumt
and Campbell OF the bargain made by
them.
THAT this agreement of the 9Th oi
January, 1888, was drawn by said James
II. Campbell himself, as was also the
agreement of the 14th of July, 1890.
That the terms of the bargain between
James II. Campbell and Louis Krumb are
correctly set forth in the letter write by
said Krumb to said Campbell on the 2Sth
day of February, 1890, which is in the fol-
lowing words:
San JOSE, February 2S, 1890
Dear Friend Campbell Your views concern
ing your financial ques ton given in yours Of
yesterday came 10 hand, and of course il be-
comes my privilege to exchange with you on
equal grounds. and in order that you may
iully understand my position, and the way
interpret my claim in the matter, / resort to
putting 1t in writing. When l first proposed
10 furnish you client, bv whom you could
earn fortune for yourself. you naturally &C.
cepted the offer with the greatest pleasure:
something which suppose any attorney, with
no exception I'm this county, would have done
without hesitation.
When we came to fix the percentage nv man
was to pay, you figured on how much you
should earn in the case for Yourself and then
added TO this the percentage was to receive
as brokerage, which amounted to ] As plus
10, equals per cent. | therefore hold that
NOT you but my man paid my percentage indi-
rectiy Dy agreement. performed my part OF
the work, and assure you now that it was not
so easy one, for you were not his preferred
choice at the time, and you recollect well the
time II took, and how uneasy you telt during
the pendency before got him finally TO con-
sent to my wish.
This ended actually my mission, and the
commission received in the case in an indi-
rect way from you had fully earned and it
was SO un 1erstood by you and paid, therefore
nothing further need be said in changing this
qeeo 70 me. hope that you don't regret that
1 betrlended You procured for YOU s-lch
magnificent fer, the like OF which, believe,
has never been earned by any attorney before
in this city.
Now, to the last agreement:
What have you actually done for me that
mas entitled you to share in the one-haH per-
centage agreement?
You certainly was not aware at the time you
closed the nrst agreement that there was any
additional fee coming TO you from that source.
The $4,000 or more that Mr.. L intended to
pay me " hen he was enabled 10 do so / had
then already earned, and If no agreement
would have been made between us and left
1t go, running the risk that ne would live to
pay me, you certainly would not claim that
you were entitled to share in the same
furthermore, you had known nothing about
this until | tod you; that the work was
doing for Mr.. L. ! expected to be paid for bv
him, and that ne promised me TO do so before
you were in the case. ] made you q proposi-
tion that if you assist me in procuring a larger
lee (say per cent? that would add that 10 our
8 per cent, making total OF per cent and
then divide the same in equal parts No other
definite arrangement was made, except your
making the proposition OF giving you two-iith
OF one-half per cent out OF my Zee, to which I
replied ! would make ii satisfactory to Won
There the matter stood until the last agree
ment was signed. Now you could not persuade
Mr.. l. 70 pay above additional fee, and thera-