Paul v. Frye

12 A. 544, 80 Me. 26, 1887 Me. LEXIS 130
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedDecember 22, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 12 A. 544 (Paul v. Frye) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Paul v. Frye, 12 A. 544, 80 Me. 26, 1887 Me. LEXIS 130 (Me. 1887).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an equity appeal. The bill is to enforce specific performance of an agreement to convey lands. The question was as to the amount the complainant was to pay for such conveyance. The case was referred to a master, who heard the parties and their witnesses, and examined their papers, and made his report, stating the amount he found due ; he also reported the evidence taken before him. The complainant objected to the master’s findings, and was heard thereon by the presiding justice, who reviewed the reported evidence and found the master’s findings to be correct, and decreed accordingly. [27]*27The complainant thereupon appealed. Questions of fact only are presented by the appeal.

While the master’s report upon questions of fact is not conclusive, yet it has substantially the weight of a verdict of a jury ; and his conclusions are not to be set aside or modified without clear proof of error on his part. Dean v. Emerson, 102 Mass. 480; Trow v. Berry, 113 Mass. 146 ; Richards v. Todd, 127 Mass. 172; Cary v. Herrin, 62 Maine, 16.

Again, we have before held that the decision of a single justice upon matters of fact in an equity hearing should not be reversed unless it clearly appears that such decision is erroneous. Young v. Witham, 75 Maine, 536.

The appellant must show the decree appealed from to be clearly wrong, otherwise it will be affirmed.

Applying these rules, we cannot say that the finding of the master and that of the single justice are clearly wrong. The evidence was conflicting, but some of it fully sustains the findings.

Decree affirtned.

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

Related

Flagg v. Davis
83 A.2d 319 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1951)
Cassidy v. Murray
74 A.2d 230 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1950)
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. City of Portland
68 A.2d 12 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1949)
Lunt v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
28 A.2d 736 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1942)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A. 544, 80 Me. 26, 1887 Me. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-v-frye-me-1887.