W.R.B. Corporation, D/B/A Robertson Construction Company v. Odell Geer, D/B/A Odell Geer Company, and B.H. (Bert) Camp, D/B/A b.h.c.materials Company

Fifth Circuit

W.R.B. Corporation, D/B/A Robertson Construction Company v. Odell Geer, D/B/A Odell Geer Company, and B.H. (Bert) Camp, D/B/A b.h.c.materials Company

332 F.2d 180, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5322

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 20, 1964

Docket20999_1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 332 F.2d 180 (W.R.B. Corporation, D/B/A Robertson Construction Company v. Odell Geer, D/B/A Odell Geer Company, and B.H. (Bert) Camp, D/B/A b.h.c.materials Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

W.R.B. Corporation, D/B/A Robertson Construction Company v. Odell Geer, D/B/A Odell Geer Company, and B.H. (Bert) Camp, D/B/A b.h.c.materials Company, 332 F.2d 180, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5322 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On its former appearance in this Court, W. R. B. Corp. v. Geer, 5 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 750, we remanded this case because the District Judge had not properly applied the clearly erroneous standard in the review of the findings of the special master. F.R.Civ.P. 53(e) (2). Our reconsideration on the briefs and argument and the record made by the District Judge on remand reveals two things without question. First, on remand the District Court carefully applied the correct legal standard which we epitomized in our former opinion. Second, applying those standards, there was ample basis for sustaining the Special Master’s findings. No point would be served by discussing each of these items or the evidence pro and con on them. There was conflict and the Special Master resolved it. There is ample basis for his resolution.

That leaves only the question of law as to whether the District Judge could disregard the findings of the Master relating to the effect of certain releases. We agree with the District Court that under the controlling Texas cases, e. g., Oviett v. Warner, Tex.Comm’n App., 1926, 288 S.W. 434; First Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. Conner, Tex.Civ.App., 1919, 209 S.W. 417, the releases lacked legal consideration to support a discharge of the particular items allowed by the Master. This being true, the Master’s findings relating to the releases were clearly erroneous if findings of fact, and were clearly wrong if conclusions of law. In either event the District Judge properly set them aside.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

On its former appearance in this Court, W. R. B. Corp. v. Geer, 5 Cir., 1963, 313 F.2d 750, we remanded this case because the District Judge had not properly applied the clearly erroneous standard in the review of the findings of the special master. F.R.Civ.P. 53(e) (2). Our reconsideration on the briefs and argument and the record made by the District Judge on remand reveals two things without question. First, on remand the District Court carefully applied the correct legal standard which we epitomized in our former opinion. Second, applying those standards, there was ample basis for sustaining the Special Master’s findings. No point would be served by discussing each of these items or the evidence pro and con on them. There was conflict and the Special Master resolved it. There is ample basis for his resolution.

That leaves only the question of law as to whether the District Judge could disregard the findings of the Master relating to the effect of certain releases. We agree with the District Court that under the controlling Texas cases, e. g., Oviett v. Warner, Tex.Comm’n App., 1926, 288 S.W. 434; First Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. Conner, Tex.Civ.App., 1919, 209 S.W. 417, the releases lacked legal consideration to support a discharge of the particular items allowed by the Master. This being true, the Master’s findings relating to the releases were clearly erroneous if findings of fact, and were clearly wrong if conclusions of law. In either event the District Judge properly set them aside.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

332 F.2d 180, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 5322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wrb-corporation-dba-robertson-construction-company-v-odell-geer-ca5-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack