Case Name: ELLIS v. WARE
Court: District of Columbia Municipal Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: District of Columbia
Decision Date: 1954-02-10
Citations: 102 A.2d 756
Docket Number: No. 1450
Parties: ELLIS v. WARE.
Judges: Before CAYTON, ■ Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 102
Pages: 756–756

Head Matter:
ELLIS v. WARE.
No. 1450.
Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Submitted Jan. 25, 1954.
Decided Feb. 10, 1954.
'Franklin A. Higgs, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
No'appearance for appellee.
Before CAYTON, ■ Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
. Attorney Raymond A. Brownlow entered an appearance in behalf of appellee but withdrew same prior to the date the case was submitted.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the trial court's finding that defendant was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $499.25.
Plaintiff testified that he had loaned $600 to defendant and to one Fisher and that the loan was not repaid on the date agreed upon. Subsequently defendant was employed by plaintiff as a real estate salesman, and the parties agreed that the loan would be repaid out of defendant's commissions. Plaintiff introduced into evidence a written statement, signed by defendant, which recited a part payment of the debt by defendant and acknowledged that $499.25 was the balance due. In his testimony defendant admitted the loan, but contended that he was only obligated to pay one-half of the amount and that Fisher was responsible for. the balance.
This case is like many others where no principles of law are involved and the dispute is entirely a. factual one. As has been said many times before, the trial court is in a much- better position than we to reach a decision on such questions. It is sufficient to say in the present case that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the trial court.
Affirmed.