
    KLEIN et al. v. ARMSTRONG.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    April 21, 1899.)
    Appeal—Review.
    Finding's of the court on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Ninth district.
    Action by Leo M. Klein and another against George Armstrong. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before FBEEDMAN, P. J., and MacLEAN and LEVEN-ZRITT, JJ.
    Samuel E. Duffey, for appellant.
    Walter J. Kosenstein, for respondents.
   LEVENTRITT, J.

Becovery was had by the plaintiffs, attorneys at law, on an express contract for professional services rendered in realizing on a claim owned by the defendant. The disclaimer of liability was based on a denial of the contract, and of the performance of the services. One of the plaintiffs testified to all the facts necessary to establish the cause of action. The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs represented the purchaser of the claim, who, called as a witness by the defendant, rather negatived, than supported, the latter’s contention, by his denial that the plaintiffs were acting in his behalf. The justice’s solution of this conflict was warranted by the evidence; and, as the record discloses no exception, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to the respondents. All concur.  