
    LOBB’S APPEAL.
    A master’s finding, confirmed by the Court, -will not be reversed except for palpable error.
    A master appointed to settle a partnership account is not obliged to adopt the conclusion arrived at by an expert book-keeper employed by agreement of counsel to examine the books of the firm.
    Appeal from the Common Pleas of Chester County. In Equity.
    No. 11
    July Term, 1883.
    This was a bill in equity brought by Clayton A. Lobb vs. Preston W. Lobb, to settle partnership accounts. The master made a report in which he found that there remained a balance due to the plaintiff of $1,327.41. Ten exceptions were filed, but the Court overruled the exceptions on March 26, 1838, in the following opinion,
    Per Curiam:
    The exceptions to the report of the master are dismissed and the report confirmed, and it is ordered that the parties do each pay the costs of the proceedings, including the master’s fee and the amount due to James T. Doran for services as accountant and expert in analyzing the books of the firm, in aid of the proceedings, which services were rendered by the agreement of parties during the pending of the ease before the master. The counsel for plaintiff will prepare a proper decree • and submit it to the- opposite counsel and the Court.
    Preston "W. Lobb then appealed,
    assigning among other errors, that the Court erred in declining to accept the results of the books as shown by examination, and declining to accept the evidence of James Doran, expert book-keeper, called by the plaintiff.
    
      Charles H. Pennypncker, for appellant,
    argued that the weight due to a master’s report, depends upon the matter in question. If we fiud a master supporting a conclusion by false deductions or upon erroueous views of the character and weight of the facts actually found, it is not only our right, but our duty, to correct his error; Phillips’ Appeal, 68 Penna. 138; Kutz’s Appeal, 12 W. N. C., 28. It was an error for the ’master to reject the evidence and conclusions of James T. Doran, the expert book-keeper, called by the plaintiff himself.
    
      E. E. Monaghan, E-q., contra,
    argued that the Court will not interfere unless there is a palpable mistake to be corrected, Kisor’s Appeal, 62 Penna., 428; Kutz’s Appeal, 12 W. N. C., 27.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Court below on Feb. 25, 1884, in the following opinion,

Per Curiam:

This contention relates to facts and figures. The master appears to have carefully considered the facts and examined ffhe figures, and has given the result of his labors. He was not bound to adopt implicitly the conclusion of the expert book-keeper. The master availed himself of all the aid thus furnished from the books, but he pursued his investigations still further. The Court dismissed all exceptions to the report .and confirmed it. Where the appellant alleges error, the burden rests upon him to show it. That he has failed to do, and we .do not discover any.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appeliaut.  