Legal Opinion

Krumb v. Campbell

California Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 1894No. 15220PublishedCited by 7 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

1Opinion of the CourtGaroutte, J.

Appellant insists that this action is prematurely brought, and the conclusion reached by the court as to that contention is determinative of the litigation. The facts of the case may be briefly stated: On the eighth day of January, 1888, the appellant entered into an agreement with certain heirs of Charles Lux, deceased, whereby he engaged to give his services as an attorney to them throughout the administration of the estate of said deceased, and bear his own expenses in so doing, and, as compensation therefor, said heirs conveyed to him three per cent of their interest in said estate. On…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. Mayborne v. Citizens Trust & Savings BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
  2. Hagan v. McNaryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
  3. Mitchell v. TowneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  4. Corato v. Estate of CoratoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Kimball v. School District No. 122Washington Supreme Court · 1900

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API