The opinion
Baokes, Y. C.
The master’s findings are sustained by the evidence. There was sharp conflict in the testimony om the question of percentage the defendant was entitled to for compensation—so-called expert testimony. The master had first-hand opportunity to value- and -weigh it, and as well that of defendant, which was not at all times attuned to- frankness. The master’s resolve in favor of the complainants’ contention is not to be- disturbed unless he erred in matter of law or, plainly, as to the facts. Iszard v. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309; Haulenbeck v. Cronkright, 23 N. J. Eq. 407; Eckerson v. McCulloh, 1 Atl. Rep. 700 ; Blauvelt v. Ackerman, 23 N. J. Eq. 495; Warner v. Hill, 74 Atl. Rep. 973 ; Bagley & Sewall Co. v. Traders Paper Board Co., 86 Atl. Rep. 1029 .
As I find no- error the exceptions will be overruled, with costs.