
    Myer Davis, appellant, v. Harry Abramson, respondent.
    [Decided January 31st, 1927.]
    On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Ingersoll, who filed the following opinion:
    “The complainant files his bill asking for an accounting from the defendant, alleging that Abramson was acting as his agent in the purchase of a tract of real estate, and that he, the complainant, is entitled to receive from the defendant the difference between the amount paid by defendant for the property and the amount which he, the complainant, paid therefor.
    “This is entirely a question of fact. I find that the complainant has not carried the burden of proof necessary to sustain the allegations of the bill. That he has not proven that Abramson was his agent at the time of the purchase by Abramson from Kleinhans, and that Abramson was not acting for himself in said purchase, and that the sale to Davis was from Abramson. Though the deed was made directly from Kleinhans to Abramson, this is not under the evidence sufficient to prove that Abramson was acting as agent.
    “The bill will be dismissed.”
    
      Messrs. Bolte & 8ooy, for the appellant.
    
      Messrs. Harcourt & Steelman, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The decree appealed from will be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion filed in the court below by Vice-Chancellor Ingersoll.

For affirmance — The Chief-Justice, Trenchard, Min-turn, Kalisch, Black, Katzenbach, Campbell, Lloyd, Van Buskirk, MoGlennon, Kays, Hetfield, JJ. 12.

For reversal — Hone.  