American Rotary Valve Co. v. Moorehead
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Wustum v. Kradwell (7th Cir. 1920)
- Keeton v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. (4th Cir. 1925)
- Presidio Mining Co. v. Overton (9th Cir. 1921)
- Kaplan v. Dreveno (7th Cir. 1916)
- United States v. Grass Creek Oil & Gas Co. (8th Cir. 1916)
- Malloy v. New York Life Ins. Co. (1st Cir. 1939)
- Plumer v. Hewitt (7th Cir. 1937)
- Illinois Watch Case Co. v. Hingeco Mfg. Co. (1st Cir. 1936)
- Uihlein v. General Electric Co. (7th Cir. 1931)
- Herman Body Co. v. St. Louis Body & Equipment Co. (8th Cir. 1931)
- Moore v. Ford Motor Co. (2d Cir. 1930)
- American Central Ins. v. Harmon Knitting Mills, Inc. (7th Cir. 1930)
- Wolf Mineral Process Corp. v. Minerals Separation North American Corp. (4th Cir. 1927)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
As we believed that nothing was involved in this appeal except questions of fact, we affirmed the decree of the District Comt without, filing a written opinion. And as a re-examination leaves us under the same conviction respecting the facts, there would be no occasion los a written opinion on denying a rehearing, except for the fact chat counsel for appellant claim that we expressly or impliedly held, in so disposing of the case, “that under the new equity rules the decision of the trial court upon a disputed question of fact is binding upon the review court.” _
We had no intention of being so understood. Under the new equity udes, as well as under the old ones, the reviewing court has the right, and owes to itself and to the parties the duty, of trying the questions of fací de novo. Under the old rules, the findings of the trial court were entitled to be treated as very persuasive, and such findings were not to be disturbed, unless it appeared quite clearly that the trial court Lad either misapprehended the evidence or had gone against the clear v„ eight thereof. W e conceive that the new rules have made no change in those respects. Cases now are ordinarily to be heard by the trial judge m open colli't, while formerly they were ordinarily referred to a master. But under either set of rules, if the witnesses have been heard in open court, one element that rightly enters into the reviewing court’s consideration oí the evidence de novo is the opportunity of the trial judge to estimate the credibility of’ the witnesses by their appearance and demeanor on the stand. Espenschied v. Baum, 115 Fed. 793, 53 C. C. A. 368.
The petition for rehearing is overruled.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.