Court Opinion

ID: 9883593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:53:34.437804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:25.920534
License: Public Domain

Heher, J.
(dissenting in part). I concur in the reasoning and the conclusion of the dissenting opinion of -Judge Bigelow in the Appellate Divison.
The master properly surcharged defendant and credited the joint venture sales account with $10,599.39, as the value of miscellaneous scrap material purchased for the joint account from the Bridgeport Thermostat Company. The evidence establishes that the material - came into defendant’s possession; and defendant, who also undertook to keep the books of account, has the burden of accounting for the property. He is accountable as a fiduciary. R. S. 42:1-21. *132Doubts arising from an imperfect performance of the fiduciary’s duty to account are not to be resolved against the beneficiary. Blauvell v. Ackerman, 23 N. J. Eq. 495 (Ch. 1873), affirmed 25 N. J. Eq. 570 (E. & A. 1874). It follows that the surcharge should carry interest.
It would seem that my brothers of the majority have attached undue significance to the Appellate Division’s concurrence in the findings of fact made by the trial court, and have thereby modified the operation of Rule 1:2-20 (a). This rule provides for “a review of any cause involving issues of fact not determined by the verdict of a jury,” and the making of “new or amended findings of fact” where required to serve the ends of essential justice in the individual case. The review is necessary to discover whether justice has been done and, where that inquiry is resolved in the negative, the corrective process is to be applied. And this without regard to whether two lower tribunals have concurred in the findings of fact. Such is the essence of the rule. It was obviously designed to remedy substantial error in the determination of the facts. The assessment standard is the same in the appellate court as in the trial tribunal, but due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses. Compare Hager v. Weber, 7 N. J. 201 (1951), where the companion provision relating to jury verdicts was considered and the holding was that the Constitution of 1947 provides for a review of the facts as well as the law in accordance with the historic function of an “appeal.”
As to the remaining issues of fact, plaintiff has not sustained the burden of proof.
In the circumstances, I deem it inequitable to assess plaintiff with $1,000 of the additional allowance to the master.
I would modify the judgment accordingly.
Vandeebilt, C. J., joins in this dissent.
Burliwg, J., concurring in result.
*133For affirmance — Justices Oliphant, Wacheneeld, Bur-ling and Brennan — 4.
For modification — Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justice Heher — 2.