Little Rock Towel & Linen Supply Co. v. Independent Linen Service Co.

My dissent goes only to the second part of the majority opinion which deals with Bew’s fiduciary relation as an agent of his employers.

The majority correctly state the issue “involves a question of fact.” I cannot agree, however, with the majority that the chancellor’s decision is contrary to the weight of the evidence. In this connection it is not necessary to cite cases sustaining the well established rule that in close questions of fact we do not disturb the findings of the chancellor. The rule is based on common sense and the obvious fact that the chancellor, who sees the witness, can…