Legal Opinion
Armstrong v. Belding Bros.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided February 4, 1924No. 210PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We are not disposed to depart from the rule that the findings of a master, involving questions of fact and ■ depending upon the weighing of conflicting evidence, are entitled to that reasonable presumption in their favor which attaches to the findings of a referee or the special verdict of a jury; indeed, it may be said that on all debatable questions of fact the master’s report must be treated as- unassailable. Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136, 8 Sup. Ct. 894, 31 L. Ed. 664; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; Westinghouse…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Davis v. SchwartzSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
- Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Wagner Electric & Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Yesbera v. Hardesty Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
- Wales v. Waterbury Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Duplate Corp. v. Triplex Safety Glass Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
- National Labor Relations Board v. Remington Rand, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- Deering, Milliken & Co., Inc. v. Joseph Gilbert, Individually and Doing Business as Gilbert Textile CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1959
- Activated Sludge v. Sanitary Dist. of ChicagoDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1946
- Stromberg Motor Devices Co. v. Zenith-Detroit Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.