
    J. J. Kemp, Appellant, v. J. C. Mabry, Appellee.
    Evidence to Support Findings on Appeal.
    
      Appeal from Monroe District Court. — Hon. E. L. Burton, Judge.
    Saturday, October 7, 1893.
    The plaintiff states as his cause of action that he placed in the hands of the defendant, an attorney at law, a certain promissory note for collection; that the defendant brought an action on said note, and pending said action, without authority so to do, settled said action, and received from the defendants therein five hundred and fifty dollars in full satisfaction of said note, that being a less amount than was then due upon said note; that the defendant fraudulently concealed the fact of said settlement from the plaintiff, and converted said five hundred and fifty dollars to his own use; wherefore, the plaintiff asks judgment for the full amount of said note and interest, namely, seven hundred and eighty-seven dollars and twenty-five cents, and interest thereon.
    The defendant answered, admitting the receipt of the note for collection through one Henry Lawrey; that he brought an action thereon in the name of this plaintiff, and that he thereafter settled with the defendants in that action, and received from them five hundred and fifty dollars in satisfaction of said note, and that he then surrendered the same. He denies that said settlement was made without authority; denies that he concealed the fact of said settlement from the plaintiff; and denies that he converted said five hundred and fifty dollars to his own use, or that he has refused to pay the same to plaintiff, less his reasonable attorneys’ fees. The case was tried to the court, and upon the findings/ of facts judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for five hundred and fifteen dollars, without interest, and against him for all the costs. The plaintiff appeals.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    
      T. B. Perry, for appellant.
    
      Wm. A. Nichol and J. C. Mabry, for appellee.
   Given, J.

The questions involved in these issues are exclusively questions of fact. Under a familiar rule the findings of the district court on these questions have the force and effect of a verdict, and will not be set aside when there is evidence to sustain them.

We have examined the evidence with care, and, while it is conflicting, we think it sustains the. findings of the court. It will serve no good purpose to here discuss the evidence. It is sufficient to say that our examination of it leads us to the conclusion that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.  