Espenschied v. Baum

Seventh Circuit

Espenschied v. Baum

115 F. 793, 53 C.C.A. 368, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4251

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedMay 6, 1902

DocketNo. 839

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 115 F. 793 (Espenschied v. Baum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Espenschied v. Baum, 115 F. 793, 53 C.C.A. 368, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4251 (7th Cir. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, in their bill of complaint, charge appellees with abuse of fiduciary relations, and with misconduct in the-management of a corporation in which appellants were stockholders. After a full hearing on the merits, at which the principal evidence was heard orally by the chancellor in open court, the bill was dismissed for want of equity. The assignment of errors presents the sole question whether the decree should be reversed on the evidence. A careful consideration of the evidence in the record convinces us that the decree was right. But if the conflicts in the evidence were graver than we find them, a reversal would not be justified, since the court at the trial ha.d the opportunity (which we have not) of judging of the credibility of the witnesses by their appearance and demeanor on the stand. Under such circumstances, a very clear and palpable error in the facts must be shown on appeal.

The decree is affirmed

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, in their bill of complaint, charge appellees with abuse of fiduciary relations, and with misconduct in the-management of a corporation in which appellants were stockholders. After a full hearing on the merits, at which the principal evidence was heard orally by the chancellor in open court, the bill was dismissed for want of equity. The assignment of errors presents the sole question whether the decree should be reversed on the evidence. A careful consideration of the evidence in the record convinces us that the decree was right. But if the conflicts in the evidence were graver than we find them, a reversal would not be justified, since the court at the trial ha.d the opportunity (which we have not) of judging of the credibility of the witnesses by their appearance and demeanor on the stand. Under such circumstances, a very clear and palpable error in the facts must be shown on appeal.

The decree is affirmed

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 F. 793, 53 C.C.A. 368, 1902 U.S. App. LEXIS 4251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/espenschied-v-baum-ca7-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack