Markarian v. Bartis

The defendants contend that their motion should have been granted because there is no evidence to- support the referee’s findings, because the findings are contradictory, because the receipt dated December 2, 1932, is in part a contract, the terms of which cannot be varied by parol, and because the plaintiff’s agreement “to handle litigation on a percentage basis is champertous and void.”

The testimony has not been transferred, and no exceptions to the admission of evidence appear to have been taken. It must therefore be presumed that the findings were “based upon an adequate amount of…