BOEHM v. FAIRCHILD BROS. & FOSTER

BOEHM v. FAIRCHILD BROS. & FOSTER. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. May 17, 1910.) No. 1,671. Appeal and Eebob (§ 1017) — Review-Findings op Fact. Where there was evidence in support of every material element of a master’s finding, which was approved by the court, it will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless it appears that an obvious mistake was made in the consideration of the evidence. [Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. § S996; Dec. Dig. § 1017.*] Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois. Suit in equity by Fairchild Bros. & Foster, a corporation, against John J. Boehm. Decree for complainant, and defendant appeals. Affirmed. Wade W. Meloan, for appellant. Sigmund Zeisler, for appellee. Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges. For other cases see same topic & § number in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. The only question is whether the report of the master, on which the decree appealed from is based, is supported by sufficient evidence. On every material element of appellee’s case evidence was produced. The master was in the best position to judge of the weight and credibility of the testimony given orally before him; and his finding, approved by the Circuit Court, should not be disturbed by us, unless it appears that an obvious mistake was made in the consideration of the evidence. Crawford v. Neal, 144 U. S. 585, 12 Sup. Ct. 759, 36 L. Ed. 552. So far from this being true, we are satisfied that the finding was amply justified by the record. The decree is affirmed.