Case Name: Elijah P. Herrick and Lucy Ann Herrick v. Jeneva S. McCawley and Harris McCawley
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1900-04-26
Citations: 72 Vt. 240
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elijah P. Herrick and Lucy Ann Herrick v. Jeneva S. McCawley and Harris McCawley.
Judges: Present: Rowell, Tyler, Munson, Start, Thompson and Watson, jj.
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 72
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
Elijah P. Herrick and Lucy Ann Herrick v. Jeneva S. McCawley and Harris McCawley.
October Term, 1899.
Present: Rowell, Tyler, Munson, Start, Thompson and Watson, jj.
Opinion filed April 26, 1900.
Findings supported by evidence conclusive — Parly a witness — Inconsistent declarations of party — When there is evidence before a master tending to show previous declarations of a party at variance with his testimony, it is the duty of the master to determine whether or not the declarations were made, and if they were made, to weigh and consider them in their effect upon the testimony of the party who made them, and as evidence in chief in connection with all the evidence in the case, and by the master’s findings and failures to find upon such consideration of the evidence the parties are concluded.
Chancery. Heard on pleadings, master’s report and exceptions thereto. Chittenden County, March Term, 1899, before Taft, Chancellor, who rendered a decree dismissing the bill. The orators appealed.
The question was as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the master’s findings.
H. N. Deaviti for the orators.
Powell c& Powell for the defendants.

Opinion:
Start, J.
The answer put in issue the material allegations of the bill, and these issues, are found in favor of the defendants. The orators' counsel does not claim that the testimony of the defendant, Jeneva S. McCawley, did not tend to support the findings ; but he contends that the orators' testimony tended to show that her previous declarations were at variance with her testimony, and that, for this reason, the findings are unwarranted and against the weight of evidence. The fact that such evidence was before the master does not furnish a reason for departing from the rule, that, in the absence of fraud, findings supported by evidence are conclusive. It was the duty of the master to find whether the declarations were made and, if made, to weigh and consider them, and say how far they confirmed the claims of the orators, or affected the testimony introduced by the defendants, and, from a consideration of all the evidence, find whether the material allegations of the bill were true; and, by his finding and failure to find, the orators are concluded. Howard v. Scott, 50 Vt. 48; Willard v. Pinard, 65 Vt. 160; Waterman v. Buck, 58 Vt. 519.
Decree affirmed and cause remanded.