1. Complainant, a cousin of the five heirs and next of kin of the deceased, who live in Italy, acting under a power of attorney to collect their inheritance for them, entered into two agreements with defendant as her proctor, providing respectively for contingent fees of 37 1/2% and 12 1/2% additional of all amounts recovered by him either by way of suit, settlement, or compromise. The agreements must be set aside. They are a shocking imposition on the complainant, and constructively fraudulent.
2. Defendant proctor demands the judgment of a law court on the reasonable value of his services. Although the established principle is that when equity takes hold, it will adjudicate the entire controversy and not make business for some other court, in New Jersey the principle has not the broad scope it has elsewhere. Held, defendant may have reasonable time to establish at law the sum due him for services to the heirs and next of kin under the retainer of their agent.
3. Defendant not having taken advantage of the reasonable time given him to establish the sum due him, and complainant having joined him in requesting the court to fix his fee, the court will do so, thus adjudicating the entire controversy.
PER CURIAM.
The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinions filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Bigelow.
For affirmance — THE CHIEF-JUSTICE, BODINE, DONGES, HEHER, WACHENFELD, EASTWOOD, BURLING, WELLS, DILL, FREUND, McLEAN, SCHETTINO, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.