Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Contracts · MBE-tested
PENSACOLA SHIPBUILDING CO. et al. v. SOUTHERN WOOD PRESERVING CO.
45 F.2d 164·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1930
Before NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge, and GRONER and SOPER, District Judges.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
PENSACOLA SHIPBUILDING CO. et al. v. SOUTHERN WOOD PRESERVING CO.
No. 3034.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Nov. 5, 1930.
Willis Smith, of Carrollton, Ga., and W. T. Joyner, of Raleigh, N. C., for appellants.
James H. Pou and James H. Pou, Jr., both of Raleigh, N. C., for appellee.
Before NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge, and GRONER and SOPER, District Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the District Court at Raleigh, N. C., in favor of the plaintiff'(appellee) against the defendants (appellants). By consent the case was referred to an auditor or special master who was required “to find the facts and state his conclusions of law.” The appeal challenges the correctness of the master’s findings of fact which were adopted and approved by the District Court and on which the judgment of the District Court was based. We have carefully examined the record and are satisfied that the weight of the evidence amply supports the findings of the master, and sustains the judgment.
Ordinarily, the determinations of a master, appointed by consent of parties, are not subject to be set aside and disregarded unless plainly wrong. His findings are presumptively correct, and, except for manifest error in the consideration of the evidence or in the application of the law, are to be accepted. In this case we think the weight of the evidence is clearly with the plaintiff, and, for this reason, the judgment of the District Court should be, and is, affirmed. See Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512, 523, 9 S. Ct. 355, 32 L. Ed. 764; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Hampton (C. C. A. 5th Ct.) 134 F. 734; Rose’s Federal Procedure (3d Ed.) § -570.
Affirmed.