Dickinson v. Todd

• Decision Date: 21 November 1898
• Parties: DICKINSON v. TODD et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

172 Mass. 183

51 N.E. 976

DICKINSON v. TODD et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampshire.

November 21, 1898

COUNSEL

Hamlin & Reilley and W.G. Bassett, for appellants.

J.C Hammond, H.P. Field, and S.S. Taft, for appellee.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The justice of the superior court found that the deed in question was procured by fraud of the grantee, and entered a decree for the plaintiff. The defendants appealed and the question before us is whether the finding of the judge was erroneous. An appeal in equity brings to the appellate court questions of fact which arise upon the record as well as questions of law. But the practice which has long prevailed in Massachusetts of presenting the testimony in suits in equity orally, instead of in writing, has materially changed the effect of appeals in such suits upon questions of fact. Under the old practice, of presenting all the testimony by deposition, the appellate tribunal had before it the evidence in the same form as when it was considered by the lower court. But, under the present system, the judge who sees and hears the witnesses has a great advantage in the search for truth over those who can only read their written or printed words. For this reason the rule has long been established that, upon an appeal from a decree of a judge in equity upon questions of fact arising on oral testimony heard before him, his decision will not be reversed, unless it is plainly wrong. Reed v. Reed, 114 Mass. 372; Chase v. Hubbard, 153 Mass. 91, 26 N.E. 433; Debinson v. Emmons, 158 Mass. 592, 33 N.E. 706; Biggerstaff v. Marston, 161 Mass. 101, 36 N.E. 785; Wentworth v. Machine Co., 163 Mass. 28, 39 N.E. 414; Gutlon v. Marcus, 165 Mass. 335, 43 N.E. 125; McKay v. Kean, 167 Mass. 524, 46 N.E. 120; Edwards-Hall Co. v. Dresser, 168 Mass. 136, 46 N.E 420. In the present case there was testimony at the trial on which the court could properly find for the plaintiff. It would serve no useful purpose to review the evidence. The judge of the superior court saw the witnesses, observed their manner of testifying, formed his opinion about them, not merely in regard to their credibility in the ordinary sense, but, in the case of the plaintiff and the female defendant, in regard to everything in their temperament, experience, and habits of life, which would help him in discovering the truth. Seldom is there a case in which the reasons for the rule that weight should be...