Wilson v. Sandall

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Wilson v. Sandall

111 A. 322, 92 N.J. Eq. 130, 7 Stock. 130, 1920 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 27

CourtNew Jersey Court of Chancery

DecidedAugust 26, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 111 A. 322 (Wilson v. Sandall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wilson v. Sandall, 111 A. 322, 92 N.J. Eq. 130, 7 Stock. 130, 1920 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 27 (N.J. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Baokes, Y. C.

The master’s findings are sustained by the evidence. There was sharp conflict in the testimony om the question of percentage the defendant was entitled to for compensation—so-called expert testimony. The master had first-hand opportunity to value- and -weigh it, and as well that of defendant, which was not at all times attuned to- frankness. The master’s resolve in favor of the complainants’ contention is not to be- disturbed unless he erred in matter of law or, plainly, as to the facts. Iszard v. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309; Haulenbeck v. Cronkright, 23 N. J. Eq. 407; Eckerson v. McCulloh, 1 Atl. Rep. 700; Blauvelt v. Ackerman, 23 N. J. Eq. 495; Warner v. Hill, 74 Atl. Rep. 973; Bagley & Sewall Co. v. Traders Paper Board Co., 86 Atl. Rep. 1029.

As I find no- error the exceptions will be overruled, with costs.

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

Baokes, Y. C.

The master’s findings are sustained by the evidence. There was sharp conflict in the testimony om the question of percentage the defendant was entitled to for compensation—so-called expert testimony. The master had first-hand opportunity to value- and -weigh it, and as well that of defendant, which was not at all times attuned to- frankness. The master’s resolve in favor of the complainants’ contention is not to be- disturbed unless he erred in matter of law or, plainly, as to the facts. Iszard v. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309; Haulenbeck v. Cronkright, 23 N. J. Eq. 407; Eckerson v. McCulloh, 1 Atl. Rep. 700; Blauvelt v. Ackerman, 23 N. J. Eq. 495; Warner v. Hill, 74 Atl. Rep. 973; Bagley & Sewall Co. v. Traders Paper Board Co., 86 Atl. Rep. 1029.

As I find no- error the exceptions will be overruled, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A. 322, 92 N.J. Eq. 130, 7 Stock. 130, 1920 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-sandall-njch-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack