# Orvis v. Higgins

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · February 2, 1950 · 180 F.2d 537

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442368

## Case

- **Full name:** Orvis v. Higgins
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** February 2, 1950
- **Citations:** 180 F.2d 537; 39 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 36; 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 4071
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Chase
- **Judges:** Chase, Hand, Frank
- **Cited by:** 177 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442368

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9442368. Public record. Not legal advice.