SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was the owner of anu ndivided one-half interest in and to 2,400 hectares of land situated within the Canal Zone, being a part of the estate of "Miraflores" and that they made an agreement with the defendant whereby they were to represent him before the Joint Land Commission for the purpose of obtaining as satisfactory an award as possible by said commission as to the value of the 1,200 hectares of land belonging to said defendant, the plaintiffs to receive in consideration for their services the sum of 7 per centum of the value of said lands in accordance with said award and that the plaintiff_.' services were reasonably worth the amount mentioned. That the Joint Land Commission awarded to the defendant the sum of $17,500 United States currency, as the value of said lands, the same being approximately at the rate of $14.50 per hectare and that, therefore, the amount of money due and owing by the defendant, to the plaintiffs is the sum of $1,225.
The defendant, fot answer, admits that the plaintiffs made an agreement with the defendant whereby they were to represent him before the Joint Land Commission, but denies that by virtue of that agreement, plaintiffs were to receive in consideration of their services the sum of 7 per centum on the total amount but only 7 per centum on the excess over the sum of $10 per hectare that might be given in the award of the Joint Land Commission.
The acting judge of the Second Circuit found the issues in favor of the plaintiffs and gave judgment for the full amount claimed viz: $1,225 United States currency and all costs. In his opinion filed therein, the trial judge stated:
The evidence is conflicting and as the agreement is not in writing, and the only witnesses of weight are the plaintiffs and the defendant, it might be somewhat difficult to arrive at a just conclusion were it not for the fact that in my opinion the sum of $1,225 or 7 per cent of $17,500 is a reasonable fee for the services performed; very much less than has been formerly collected by attorneys on the Canal Zone for similar services.
I find that the plaintiffs have sustained the burden of proof and find the issues in their favor.
It will thus be seen that the question presented is solely one of fact, and it may be stated that the case is truly a regrettable one in that it presents a disputed question of fact between the plaintiffs, who are attorneys of standing and reputation at this bar, and the defendant, formerly a judge of the highest court of Panama and now a practicing attorney before the Panamanian

282