a rule, be disturbed.12 In some instances these statutes apply only to findings in actions at law and do not apply to suits in equity, and where such is the case, on appeal from the allowance or disallowance by the probate court of a claim against a decedent's estate, the decision of the appellate court as to the facts is conclusive on the reviewing court, if the case was one which did not require the probate court to exercise its equity powers; but the reviewing court must determine questions of fact as well as of law in any case where the equity 12. Connecticut.-Nolan v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 70 Conn. 159, 39 Atl. 115, 43 L.R.A. 305. Illinois.-Pennsylvania Co. v. Sloan, 125 Ill. 72, 17 N. E. 37, 8 A. S. R. 337; Nichols v. Sargent, 125 Ill. 309, 17 N. E. 475, 8 A. S. R. 378; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. West, 125 Ill. 320, 17 N. E. 788, 8 A. S. R. 380; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Lathrop, 131 Ill. 575, 23 N. E. 583, 19 A. S. R. 55, 7 L.R.A. 474; Hinckley v. Horazdowsky, 133 Ill. 359, 24 N. E. 421, 23 A. S. R. 618, 8 L.R.A. 490; Huyett & Smith Mfg. Co. v. Chicago Edison Co., 167 Ill. 233, 47 N. E. 384, 59 A. S. R. 272; St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Elgin Condensed Milk Co., 175 Ill. 557, 51 N. E. 911, 67 A. S. R. 238; Hunter v. Clarke, 184 Ill. 158, 56 N. E. 297, 75 A. S. R. 160; Malkan v. Chicago, 217 Ill. 471, 75 N. E. 548, 3 Ann. Cas. 1104, 2 L.R.A. (N.S.) 488; Chicago First Nat. Bank v. Bank of Whittier, 221 Ill. 319, 77 N. E. 568, 5 Ann. Cas. 653; Schell v. Weaver, 225 Ill. 159, 80 N. E. 95, 8 Ann. Cas. 339; Lasher v. Colton, 225 Ill. 234, 80 N. E. 122, 8 Ann. Cas. 367; Illinois Central R. Co. v. Siler, 229 Ill. 390, 82 N. E. 362, 11 Ann. Cas. 368, 15 L.R.A. (N.S.) 819; Joliet Stove Works v. Kiep, 230 Ill. 550, 82 N. E. 875, 12 Ann. Cas. 227; Nonn v. Chicago City R. Co., 232 Ill. 378, 83 N. E. 924, 122 A. S. R. 114; Walsh v. Cullen, 235 Ill. 91, 85 N. É. 223, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 911; Rigdon v. More, 242 Ill. 256, 89 N. E. 992, 134 A. S. R. 328; O'Callaghan v. Dellwood Park Co., 242 Ill. 336, 89 N. E. 1005, 134 A. S. R. 331, 17 Ann. Cas. 407, 26 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1054; Zeigler v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 245 Ill. 180, 91 N. E. 1041, 19 R. C. L. Vol. II.-14. 209 Ann. Cas. 127, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1112; McInturff v. Insurance Co. of North America, 248 Ill. 92, 93 N. E. 369, 140 A. S. R. 153, 21 Ann. Cas. 176; Luken v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co., 248 Ill. 377, 94 N. E. 175, 140 A. S. R. 220, 21 Ann. Cas. 82. New York.-Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y. 587, 67 Am. Dec. 89; In re Thompson, 127 N. Y. 463, 28 N. E. 389, 14 L.R.A. 52; Edgecomb v. Buck hout, 146 N. Y. 332, 40 N. E. 991, 28 L.R.A. 816; Fairchild v. Edson, 154 N. Y. 199, 48 N. E. 541, 61 A. S. R. 609; Laidlaw v. Sage, 158 N. Y. 73, 52 N. E. 679, 44 L.R.A. 216; Marden v. Dorthy, 160 N. Y. 39, 54 N. E. 726, 46 L.R.A. 694; Lahey v. Lahey, 174 N. Y. 146, 66 N. E. 670, 95 A. S. R. 554, 61 L.R.A. 791; špies v. National City Bank, 174 N. Y. 222, 66 N. E. 736, 61 L.R.A. 193; Barefield v. Rosell, 177 N. Y. 387, 69 N. E. 732, 101 A. S. R. 814; People ex rel. Commercial Cable Co. v. Morgan, 178 N. Y. 433, 70 N. E. 967, 67 L.R.A. 960; Kelley v. Buffalo Sav. Bank, 180 N. Y. 171, 72 N. E. 995, 105 A. S. R. 720, 69 L.R.A. 317; McClure v. Leaycraft, 183 N. Y. 36, 75 N. E. 961, 5 Ann. Cas. 45; Serano v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 156, 80 N. E. 1025. 117 A. S. R. 833; Gaines v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 188 N. Y. 411, 81 N. E 169, 11 Ann. Cas. 71; People v. Gibson, 191 N. Y. 227, 83 N. E. 976. cauley-Fein Milling Co., 199 N. Y. 123 A. S. R. 597; Rochester v. Ma207, 92 N. E. 641, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 554; People v. Bright, 203 N. Y. 73, 96 N. E. 362, Ann. Cas. 1913A 771. Texas.-Stamford Oil Mill Co. v. Barnes, 103 Tex. 409, 128 S. W. 375, Ann. Cas. 1913A 111. 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1218. powers of the probate court were involved.18 And whether there is any evidence to support the findings of fact is a question of law and reviewable as such.14 If there is no conflict in the evidence, and if the established facts permit such diverse inferences that one reasonable mind could infer that a controlling allegation was true, while another reasonable mind could infer that it was untrue, a question of fact arises which cannot be reviewed.15 If, however, the inferences from the uncontradicted evidence all point in one direction so that all reasonable minds must reach the same conclusion, no question of fact is presented,16 and an insertion in the order of the intermediate court reversing a judgment, that such reversal is upon the facts, does not raise a question of fact unless an examination of the record confirms it.17 The circumstance that the evidentiary facts are undisputed will not necessarily prevent the finding as to a necessary ultimate fact from being regarded as a controverted question of fact.18 Where there is no dispute as to the facts from which must be decided the question whether a contract is contrary to public policy there is no matter of fact involved, but the question is one of law and the finding of the intermediate appellate court is reviewable.19 Under the federal practice the supreme court will not disturb findings of the circuit court of appeals in an equity case, especially where they agree with the findings of the trial court, unless they are clearly shown to be erroneous.20 175. Findings of Referee or Master.- A finding of a referee, approved by the trial court, is entitled to the same weight and credit 13. Belleville v. Citizens' Horse R. Co., 152 Ill. 171, 38 N. E. 584, 26 L.R.A. 681; Zeigler v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 245 Ill. 180, 91 N. E. 1041, 19 Ann. Cas. 127, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1112. 14. Gannon v. McGuire, 160 N. Y. 476, 55 N. E. 7, 73 A. S. R. 694; Texas Loan Agency v. Fleming, 92 Tex. 458, 49 S. W. 1039, 44 L.R.A. 279. 15. Leathe v. Thomas, 218 Ill. 246, 75 N. E. 810, 4 Ann. Cas. 79; Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 71 N. E. 748, 1 Ann. Cas. 900, 70 L.R.A. 711. 16. Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 71 N. E. 748, 1 Ann. Cas. 900, 70 LR.A. 711. 17. Hirshfeld v. Fitzgerald, 157 N. Y. 166, 51 N. E. 997, 46 L.R.A. 839; O'Brien v. East River Bridge Co., 161 N. Y 539, 56 N. E. 74, 48 L.R.A. 122; Panrhyn Slate Co. v. Granville Electric Light & Power Co., 181 N. Y. 80, 73 N. E. 566, 2 Ann. Cas. 782; Smyth v. Brooklyn Union El. R. Co., 193 N. Y. 335, 85 N. E. 1100, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 433. 18. Chicago First Nat. Bank v. Bank of Whittier, 221 Ill. 319, 77 N. E. 563, 5 Ann. Cas. 653. 19. Brush v. Carbondale, 229 Ill. 144, 82 N. E. 252, 11 Ann. Cas. 121 and note. 20. Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Assn., 209 U. S. 20, 28 S. Ct. 335, 52 as a verdict by a jury, or a finding by the court itself, so that as a general rule his findings based on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed by the appellate court. Where a decree is based on findings by a master which have been approved by the court it will not be disturbed unless it is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence. A finding of fact by a master, concurred in by the chancellor, however, is not binding on the supreme court on appeal where it appears that such concurrence was based on an error of law. And on appeal from a judgment overruling the report and findings of fact made by a commissioner to whom the case had been referred, the appellate court will determine for itself, from the evi dence, whether it will sustain the conclusions of the commissioner or those of the court. Review of Discretionary Action 176. In General.-Many of the cases lay down the rule that the action of the trial court as to matters within its judicial discretion will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse thereof, or, as it is frequently stated, the appellate court will not review the discretion of the trial court. This rule, or rather this statement of the rule, 1. Leathe v. Thomas, 218 Ill. 246, 75 N. E. 810, 4 Ann. Cas. 79; Johnson v. Johnson, 108 Me. 272, 80 Atl. 741, Ann. Cas. 1913A 1303. 2. Idema. Comstock, 131 Wis. 16, 110 N. W. 786, 120 A. S. R. 1027. 3. Ohio Valley Bank Co. v. Mack, 163 Fed. 155, 89 C. C. A. 605, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 184; Fillmore v. Wells, 10 Colo. 228, 15 Pac. 343, 3 A. S. R. 567; Holt v. Couch, 125 N. C. 456, 34 S. E. 703, 74 A. S. R. 648; Moore v. Westbrook, 156 N. C. 482, 72 S. E. 842, Ann. Cas. 1913A 168; Mellon v. Fulton, 22 Okla. 636, 98 Pac. 911, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 960; Custer County v. Tunley, 13 S. D. 7, 82 N. W. 84, 79 A. S. R. 870. 4. Memphis v. Postal Telegraph Cable Co., 164 Fed. 600, 91 C. C. A. 135, 16 Ann. Cas. 342; Champion v. McCarthy, 228 Ill. 87, 81 N. E. 808, 10 Ann. Cas. 517, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1052; Southbridge Sav. Bank v. Mason, 147 Mass. 500, 18 N. E. 406, 1 L.R.A. 350. 5. Hord v. Holston River R. Co., 122 Tenn. 399, 123 S. W. 637, 135 A. S. R. 878, 19 Ann. Cas. 331. 6. Deepwater R. Co. v. Honaker, 66 W. Va. 136, 66 S. E. 104, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 388. 7. United States.-Cincinnati, N. O. & T. 2. R. Co. v. Gray, 101 Fed. 623, 41 C. C. A. 535, 50 L.R.A. 47 (refusal of rehearing in trial court). Alabama.-Seabury v. Doe, 22 Ala. 207, 58 Am. Dec. 254. California.-Grigsby v. Napa County, 36 Cal. 585, 95 Am. Dec. 213; Stevenson v. Boyd, 153 Cal. 630, 96 Pac. 284, 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525; Miller v. Madera Canal etc. Co., 155 Cal. 59, 99 Pac. 502, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 391. District of Columbia.-Alexander v. Alexander, 13 App. Cas. 334, 45 L.R.A. 806. Florida.-Pittman v. State, 51 Fla. 94, 41 So. 385, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 509. Georgia.-Moody Fleming, 4 Ga. 115, 48 Am. Dec. 210; Atlanta & C. Air Line R. Co. v. Gravitt, 93 Ga. 369, 20 S. E. 550, 44 A. S. R. 145, 26 L.R.A. 553; Slaughter v. Heath, 127 Ga. 747, 57 S. E. 69, 27 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1; Rogers v. State, 128 Ga. 67, 57 S. E. 227, 119 A. S. R. 364, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 999; Fitzpatrick v. McGregor, 133 Ga. 332, 15 S. E. 859, 25 L.R.A. does not give the trial judge a free hand in what might be termed discretionary matters. Discretion, in this sense, means the court's power to decide the particular matter before it according to its sense of justice and fitness, a power which, however, can only be exercised in accordance with the law, or with equitable principles, as the case may be. When the trial judge does not keep within the limits of his power in this respect, he does not exercise a judicial discretion and his action is subject to reversal by the appellate court. In any event it will be seen that the appellate court must review the action of the court below to see whether it has exercised a judicial discre (N.S.) 50; Wilkinson v. Lee, 138 Ga. 360, 75 S. E. 477, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1013. Illinois. Wann v. McNulty, 2 Gilman 355, 43 Am. Dec. 58; Ferguson v. Miles, 3 Gilman 358, 44 Am. Dec. 702; Cook v. Skelton, 20 Ill. 107, 71 Am. Dec. 250; Shaughnessy v. Holt, 236 Ill. 485, 86 N. E. 256, 21 L.R.A.(N.S.) 826. Indiana.-English v. Smock, 34 Ind. 115, 7 Am. Rep. 217. Iowa.-Goodpaster v. Voris, 8 Ia. 334, 74 Am. Dec. 313; Viele v. Germania Ins. Co., 26 Ia. 9, 96 Am. Dec. 83; Preston v. Walker, 26 Ia. 205, 96 Am. Dec. 140; Duffey v. Consolidated Block Coal Co., 147 Ia. 225, 124 N. W. 609, 30 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1067. Kansas.-Western Furniture & Mfg. Co. v. Bloom, 76 Kan. 127, 90 Pac. 821, 123 A. S. R. 123, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 225 (examination of juror on voir dire). Kentucky.-Henderson Lexington, 132 Ky. 390, 111 S. W. 318, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 20; Lucas v. Com., 149 Ky. 495, 149 S. W. 861, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 209 and note (limiting time of argument in criminal case). Louisiana.-State v. Waldron, 128 La. 559, 54 So. 1009, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 809 (cross-examination of witness). Maine.-Cummings v. Smith, 50 Me. 568, 79 Am. Dec. 629; Leathers v. Stewart, 108 Me. 96, 79 Atl. 16, Ann. Cas. 1913B 366 (ruling on defense of laches). Maryland.-Allegre v. Maryland Ins. Co., 6 Har. & J. 408, 14 Am. Dec. 289; U. S. Tel. Co. v. Gildersleve, 29 Md. 232, 96 Am. Dec. 519; Safe Deposit & Trust Co. v. Gittings, 102 Md. 456, C2 Atl. 1030, 5 Ann. Cas. 941, 4 L.R.A. (N.S) 865 (refusal of bill of review because of newly discovered evidence). Massachusetts.-Com. v. Eastman, 1 Cush. 189, 48 Am. Dec. 596; Whitehead v. Keyes, 3 Allen 495, 81 Am. Dec. 672; Bradley v. Poole, 98 Mass. 169, 93 Am. Dec. 144; Doherty v. O'Callaghan, 157 Mass. 90, 31 N. E. 726, 34 A. S. R. 258, 17 L.R.A. 188; Com. v. Tucker, 189 Mass. 457, 76 N. E. 127, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1056 (refusal to permit accused to withdraw his plea of not guilty and file special plea); Nelson v. J. H. Winchell & Co. 203 Mass. 75, 89 N. E. 180, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1150; Smith v. Com., 210 Mass. 259, 96 N. E. 666, Ann. Cas. 1912C 1236 (rejection of evidence on collateral issue); American Stay Co. v. Delaney, 211 Mass. 229, 97 N. E. 911, Ann. Cas. 1913B 509 (motion to recommit case to master). Michigan.-Withey v. Pere Marquette R. Co. 141 Mich. 412, 104 N. W. 773, 113 A. S. R. 533, 7 Ann. Cas. 57, 1 L.R.A. (N.S.) 352 (refusal to require damaged articles to be produced in court); People v. Burman, 154 Mich. 150, 117 N. W. 589, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) 251 (denial of severance in criminal case). Minnesota.-Winslow v. Minnesota & P. R. Co., 4 Minn. 313, 77 Am. Dec. 519; State v. Sheltrey, 100 Minn. 107, 110 N. W. 353, 10 Ann. Cas. 245. Missouri.-Cape Girardeau, & C. R. Co. v. Blechle, 234 Mo. 471, 137 S. W. 974, Ann. Cas. 1912D 246 (ruling on right to open and close). Nebraska.-Beck v. Staats, 80 Neb. 482, 114 N. W. 633, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) tion, and if it finds that discretion, as above defined, has not been exercised, as where the action was arbitrary, or, to use the more familiar statement, if it finds that there has been a clear abuse of discretion, it will not hesitate to reverse.8 The right to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea of "guilty of murder in the first degree," after having withdrawn his former plea of "not guilty," and to allow him to plead anew his plea of "not guilty," and to have a trial thereon before a jury, also rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and is reviewable on appeal for any abuse." Where a court bases its action solely on a want of power to grant the order 768 (denying view by jury); In re Winch, 84 Neb. 251, 121 N. W. 116, 18 Ann. Cas. 903; Pumphrey v. State, 84 Neb. 636, 122 N. W. 19, 18 Ann. Cas. 979, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1023 (excusing veniremen or talesmen). New Hampshire.-Riddel v. Gage, 37 N. H. 519, 75 Am. Dec. 151. New York.-Third Great Western Turnpike Road Co. v. Loomis, 32 N. Y. 127, 88 Am. Dec. 311; People v. New York Infant Asylum, 122 N. Y. 190, 25 N. E. 241, 10 L.R.A. 381 (refusal of mandamus); People v. Coler, 166 N. Y. 1, 59 N. E. 716, 82 A. S. R. 605, 52 L.R.A. 814. North Dakota.-Auld v. Cathro, 20 N. D. 461, 128 N. W. 1025, Ann. Cas. 1913A 90, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 71. Oklahoma. Farmers & Merchants' Ins. Co. v. Cuff, 29 Okla. 106, 116 Pac. 435, 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 892; Johnson v. State, 1 Okla. Crim. 321, 97 Pac. 1059, 18 Ann. Cas. 300 (qualification of jurors); Armstrong v. State, 2 Okla. Crim. 567, 103 Pac. 658, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 776 (permitting jurors to separate in criminal case). Pennsylvania.-Hufnagle v. Delaware, & Hudson Co., 227 Pa. St. 476, 76 Atl. 205, 19 Ann. Cas. 850, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 982 (exclusion of evidence on collateral point). South Carolina.-McCrary v. Southern R. Co., 83 S. C. 103, 65 S. E. 3, 18 Ann. Cas. 840 (relevancy of evidence). Utah.-Blair v. Blair, 121 Pac. 19, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 269 (amount of alimony). Vermont.-Carpenter v. Gookin, 2 Vt. 495, 21 Am. Dec. 566; Van Dyke 1. Grand Trunk R. Co., 84 Vt. 212, 78 Atl. 958, Ann. Cas. 1913A 640 (refusal to recommit referee's report). Washington.-State v. Nordstrom, 21 Wash. 403, 58 Pac. 248, 53 L.R.A. 584. Wisconsin.-Johnson v. Swanke, 128 Wis. 68, 107 N. W. 481, 8 Ann. Cas. 544, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1048; Milwaukee Light, Heat & Traction Co. v. Ela Co., 142 Wis. 424, 125 N. W. 903, 20 Ann. Cas. 707, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 567 (setting aside award in condemnation proceedings). England.-Gardner v. Jay, 29 Ch. D. 50, 3 Eng. Rul. Cas. 248. 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1015 note (qualification of jurors). 8. Miller v. Wallace, 76 Ga. 479, 2 A. S. R. 48; Robbins v. Treadway, 2 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 540, 19 Am. Dec. 152; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Barlow, 20 N. D. 197, 126 N. W. 233, Ann. Cas. 1912C 763 (setting aside stipulation); State v. Doris, 51 Ore. 136, 94 Pac. 44, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 660; State v. Nelson, 19 R. I. 467, 34 Atl. 990, 61 A. S. R. 780,-33 L.R.A. 559 (discharge of jury in criminal case); Wheeling & E. G. R. Co. v. Triadelphia, 58 W. Va. 487, 52 S. E. 499, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 321. 9. State v. Stevenson, 64 W. Va. 392, 62 S. E. 688, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) South Dakota.-Clark v. Deadwood, 22 S. D. 233, 117 N. W. 131, 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 402 (dissolution of preliminary 713. injunction). |