
    Morris Abraham v. Michael Kramer and Isaac Brooks.
    1. Propositions of Law—Questions of Fact.—Where the court holds all the propositions of law in favor of a party, the question left for him to contest is, did the court take the right view of the facts?
    Assumpsit, for money paid, etc. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed January 22, 1896.
    Statement of the Case.
    This was an action brought by Hichael Kramer and Isaac Brooks, appellees, against Horris Abraham, the appellant, before a justice of the peace. On appeal to the Circuit Court, a jury being waived, the cause was tried before the court. The court found the issues for the appellees and rendered a judgment against the appellant for $100 and costs. The appellees based their right to recover on the following receipt or memoranda of agreement, to wit:
    “Chicago, December 31, 1894.
    Received of Kramer & Co., $100 for part payment on $600 for saloon in 96 West Madison street, and which I agree to give full right and title on said place of business containing lease, fixtures and all open packages, money register not included and license not included.
    Kramer, Brooks & Abraham.”
    Appellant received the $100. Appellees failed to pay the $500 balance. Appellant held the saloon ten days and sold it for $600, by throwing into the bargain the rent of the place for two-thirds of the month of January and the cost of the saloon license for the same length of time.
    Cruikshank & Atwood, attorneys for appellant.
    Rosenthal, Kurz & Hirschl, attorneys for appellees.
   Mr. Justice Waterman

delivered the opinion of the Court.

As the court held all the propositions of law the appellant presented, the only question in this case is, whether the court took the right view of the facts.

We find ourselves unable, from an examination of the record, to say that it did not, and the judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed.  