The San Francisco call., 1899-08-04
BROKE ONE BIG
FIRM ONLY TO
FORM ANOTHER
Page, McCutCheon &
EeIIs Dissolved.
THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY
LAWYERS BELIEVE 1T rs BE-
CAUSE OF THE TEVIS WILL.
In Order to Avoid Dividing the Fees,
They Say, the Old Firm Was
Dissolved and the New
One Formed.
THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY
LAWYERS BELIEVE 1T rs BE-
CAUSE OF THE TEVIS WILL.

The law firm of Page, McCutcheon &
Eells has been dissolved, and in the sur
prise at the dissolution Of a partnership
supposed to be a permanent one, the legal
fraternity is quietly smiling at what they
believe is the reason for the breakup. 1t
was no common cause, the lawyers say;
it was nothing less than a will and the
will of the millionaire, Lloyd Tevis, and
so the fees would not be split up into too
many portions, the firm was quietly dis
solved and a new one was built upon its
ashes. In the new one are Pagej Nc
Cutcheon, Harding and knight. Harding
is Reinhart Harding Of the old firm,
who it is said, has been kept in a posi-
ton much subordinate to that he held be-
fore knight is Sam Knight, ex-Assistant
United States District Attorney. The men
who were left out in the cold are Charles
P. Eells, who for twenty years was a
partner of Page in the old firm of Page
& EelIs and Michael n. Michael.
The firm of Page, McCutcheon & Eells
has been in existence for over four years.
1t was formed by the introduction into
the firm of Page & Eells of Edward ].
Estee for long time. Reinhart Harding
was added later. 1t was always appar-
entity prosperous firm and appeared to
do a great deal of good business, so when
solved the question why was prominent
among the comments in legal circles
Mr. Page S eADIdHdllOH OIL the QlSSOlu-
tion is that about three months ago Nc
Cutcheon and he decided that the MEM
bers OF the firm could make more money
if it separated into individual members
and each went into business for himself
1T was three months ago, he said last
evening when Mr.. McCutcheon and 1
reached this decision. When we had done
so we passed a resolution diSSolving the
firm. No, we did not constitute a major
ity but we passed resolution dissov-
ing the firm. and we got out. There is no
truth In any story of dissensions among
u.s. We parted on the best of terms.
We simply thought we could do better if
we separate ted and we separated. We took
Mr.. Harding into our firm, and three
months ago we spoke to Mr.. Knight.
There was then no thought of the Teyis
will Mr.. Tevis was not dead, nor have
we yet seen anything of the will. 1t has
not yet been opened and have ne knowl-
edge whether or not we will get it. In
fact, 1 have no official knowledge of the
will at ALL.
It is Just this official knowledge of the
Tevis will that has caused legal smile
to light the faces of local lawyers. The
old firm had as matter of fact no Off
cial knowledge of the will, for the will
will not be opened before the return of
Mrs Sharon from the East. 1t is under
stood that McCutcheon will get the pre-
cious document to probate, but it has not
yet been given to him, so 1t is not the
property of the present firm nor was ii
the property of the old firm. Hence If the
firm dissolved 1t could not be said that
1t was deprived of anything 1t never had
and If then the will were turned over to
McCutcheon the old firm would have no