Case Name: George Wilson et al., trading as United Tin Trading Co., v. Marion E. Sandall
Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1920-08-26
Citations: 92 N.J. Eq. 130
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Wilson et al., trading as United Tin Trading Co., v. Marion E. Sandall.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Equity Reports
Volume: 92
Pages: 130–130

Head Matter:
George Wilson et al., trading as United Tin Trading Co., v. Marion E. Sandall.
[Decided August 26th, 1920.]
Where there was sharp conflict in the testimony of the parties and in the expert testimony, the finding of the master who had first-hand opportunity to value and weigh the testimony will not be disturbed unless he erred in a matter of law or, plainly, as to the facts.
On exceptions to master’s report.
Mr. Lewis Fisher, for the exceptant.
Mr. Norman Grey, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Baokes, Y. C.
The master's findings are sustained by the evidence. There was sharp conflict in the testimony om the question of percentage the defendant was entitled to for compensation—so-called expert testimony. The master had first-hand opportunity to value- and -weigh it, and as well that of defendant, which was not at all times attuned to- frankness. The master's resolve in favor of the complainants' contention is not to be- disturbed unless he erred in matter of law or, plainly, as to the facts. Iszard v. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309; Haulenbeck v. Cronkright, 23 N. J. Eq. 407; Eckerson v. McCulloh, 1 Atl. Rep. 700; Blauvelt v. Ackerman, 23 N. J. Eq. 495; Warner v. Hill, 74 Atl. Rep. 973; Bagley & Sewall Co. v. Traders Paper Board Co., 86 Atl. Rep. 1029.
As I find no- error the exceptions will be overruled, with costs.