D.T. McKeithan Lumber Co. v. Fidelity Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1915
• Docket Number: 1318.
• Citation: 223 F. 773
• Parties: D. T. McKEITHAN LUMBER CO. v. FIDELITY TRUST CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

223 F. 773

D. T. McKEITHAN LUMBER CO. v. FIDELITY TRUST CO. et al.

No. 1318.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

June 8, 1915

Louis G. Addison, of Columbus, Ohio (James Simons, of Charleston S.C., on the brief), for appellant.

Henry E. Davis and P. A. Willcox, both of Florence, S.C. (Willcox &amp Willcox, of Florence, S.C., on the brief), for appellees.

Before KNAPP, Circuit Judge, and CONNOR, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the issue of misrepresentation, which is the principal issue in the case, the learned judge presiding at the trial, who heard all the witnesses testify, made the following finding:

'The court finds as a conclusion of fact in this case that Mr Poston and his associates in this case rested upon their own responsibility; that they relied not upon the codefendants in this case as constituting their officers or trustees, but were treating with them in the purchase of this property at arm's length; that they were intelligent business men, well aware of their rights, and well qualified and able to protect them, and they are not entitled in this case to rely upon any rule of responsibility as that the individual codefendants held towards them any position as quasi trustees. The defendants Bonsal and Barr, so far from that, I find, had nothing whatsoever to do with these negotiations prior to their consummation in the contract of sale and deed of conveyance; that they acted wholly as directors and stockholders for the protection of their own interest personally, and that of their own companies, and they undertook in no wise any responsibility whatsoever to the D. T. McKeithan Lumber Company, or to Poston and his associates, and they are not bound to any liability therefor.'

Passing the point that no exception was taken to this finding, and treating it as involving a question of mixed law and fact which is sufficiently presented by the assignments of error we need only express the opinion, after careful study of the record, that the conclusion of the District Judge upon this issue of fact is supported by the testimony and should therefore be accepted on this appeal. It is familiar doctrine that the findings of the trial court in an equity case are presumptively correct, and will not be set aside by an appellate tribunal, unless they are based upon an obvious error of law or a serious mistake in dealing with the facts. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. Dry Goods Co. et al., 104 F. 243,...