Moffatt v. Blake

• Decision Date: 06 April 1906
• Docket Number: 2,180.
• Citation: 145 F. 40
• Parties: MOFFATT v. BLAKE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

145 F. 40

MOFFATT v. BLAKE.

No. 2,180.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 6, 1906

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The findings of a master, concurred in by the court, are to be taken as presumptively correct, and will be permitted to stand unless some obvious error has intervened in the application of the law, or some serious or important mistake has been made in the consideration of the evidence.

Where an overdue note is by agreement of the parties indorsed 'Extended on or before Oct. 1st, 1902, at 6% interest from Mch. 27, '02,' the date of the indorsement, the legal effect thereof is to make 6 per cent. the rate of interest from that time of payment, and not merely until October 1, 1902.

Paul D Kitt, for appellant.

Tom H Reynolds, for appellee.

Before VANDEVANTER and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and LOCHREN, District judge.

VANDEVANTER Circuit Judge.

This is a controversy over the amount due under a mortgage upon property belonging to the estate of a bankrupt.Its proper determination depends upon two questions: (1) Was the note of a third person which was turned over to the mortgage creditor by the mortgagor accepted by the former as a payment and extinguishment pro tanto of the mortgage debt?(2) Was the reduction which was made in the rate of interest on the mortgage debt restricted to the period ending October 1 1902?The report of the master and the decree of the District Court resolved both questions adversely to the mortgage creditor.

The master recognized the rule of law that the acceptance by a creditor of the note of his debtor or of a third person does not constitute payment unless it is so specially agreed at the time, but found from the evidence that it was so specially agreed in this instance, and his report was approved by the District Court.In this respect the case falls within the settled rule that the findings of a master concurred in by the court, are to be taken as presumptively correct, and will be permitted to stand unless some obvious error has intervened in the application of the law, or some serious or important mistake has been made in the consideration of the evidence.Furrer v. Ferris,145 U.S. 132, 12 Sup.Ct. 821, 36 L.Ed. 649;Fisher v. Shropshire147 U.S. 133, 146, 13 Sup.Ct. 201, 37 L.Ed. 109;Warren v. Burt, 7 C.C.A. 105, 110, 58 F. 101;Cheney v. Bilby,20 C.C.A. 291, 299, 74 F. 52.The record has been carefully examined, and we deem it sufficient to say that there...