"evidence sufficient to support a jury verdict or an administrative finding may not suffice to support a judge's finding"
How later courts described this case
- "evidence sufficient to support a jury verdict or an administrative finding may not suffice to support a judge's finding"
- reciprocal trusts; inferences drawn from undisputed facts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHASE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with my brothers that these findings are “clearly erroneous.” The trial judge saw and heard witnesses who testified concerning matters which had a direct tendency to explain plausibly how these two trusts might have been created when, and as, they were, without any so-called “reciprocal” taint. That judge, as his reasoned opinion shows, believed them and gave effect to their testimony in weighing all the relevant facts proved. His findings support the judgment and those findings, as this record *542 unmistakably shows, are the result of a careful study of evidence which he might reasonably believe, and believing, might reasonably use as the basis for drawing the inferences he did.
This is a typical instance for the application of Civil Rule 52(a). Though trial judges may at times be mistaken as to facts, appellate judges are not always omniscient.
I would affirm.