Ellis v. Ware

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Ellis v. Ware

102 A.2d 756, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 227

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 10, 1954

DocketNo. 1450

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 102 A.2d 756 (Ellis v. Ware) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ellis v. Ware, 102 A.2d 756, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 227 (D.C. 1954).

Pincite

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 of¹ the trial court.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 of¹ the trial court.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 A.2d 756, 1954 D.C. App. LEXIS 227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellis-v-ware-dc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack