KING DAVID, APPELLANT,
v.
WILLIAM B. BRYANT, RECEIVER, UNITED HOUSE OF PRAYER FOR ALL PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH ON THE ROCK OF THE APOSTOLIC FAITH, ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a judgment resting on findings of fact adopted by the trial court will not be set aside unless those findings are clearly erroneous.
Appellant challenged an auditor's report recommending a $500 fee for services in a receivership. The trial court overruled appellant's objections and …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Receivership cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court confirming a report of the auditor of that court allowing appellant a fee for his services rendered in a receivership proceeding. After the auditor had filed his report recommending allowance to appellant of a fee of $500, appellant filed exceptions and objections to that report, based on the alleged inadequacy of the recommended allowance. The court, however, overruled the exceptions and objections, and directed the receiver to make distribution in accordance with the auditor’s report. The receiver did make such disbursement, including a check to appellant for the $500 recommended, which check appellant accepted and cashed.
We have said on several occasions that this court “may not properly set aside a judgment which rests upon findings of fact made by a special master and adopted by the trial court unless at least such findings are clearly erroneous.” 1 Dyker Bldg. Co. v. United States, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 299, 182 F. 2d 85, 87 (1950).
Holding as we do that the findings of the auditor approved by the District Court are not “clearly erroneous” but. are, in fact, well supported in the record,, it follows that the judgment of the District Court must be and is
Affirmed.
. Rule 53(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that “the word ‘master’ includes a referee, an auditor, and an. examiner.”