A court of equity is not bound by the re port of a master, but may confirm, modify, or reject it as the issues in the suit must be decided by the court itself ; Black v. Gunn, 60 Fed. 151, 8 C. C. A. 534, 19 U. S. App. 477 ; but this finding both of fact and of law will be presumed to be correct ; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289 ; and will stand unless there is some obvious error in the application of the law ch. serious mistake in the consideration of the evidence ; Crawford v. Neal, 144 U. S. 585, 12 Sup. Ct. 759, 36 L. Ed. 552 ; Fry v. Feamster, 36 W. Va. 454, 15 S. E. 253.
There is a distinction between the findings of a master in the usual form to report tes timony and his findings when he has been appointed by consent of parties. In the lat ter case his findings of fact are attended by a presumption of correctness similar to that in the case of a finding by a referee, the spe cial verdict of a jury, the findings of a cir cuit court in a case tried by the court under R. S. § 469, or in an admiralty cause appeal ed to the supreme court. In neither of these cases is the finding absolutely conclusive ; but so far as it depends upon conflicting tes timony, or upon the credibility of witnesses, or so far as there is any testimony consist ent with the finding, it must be treated as unassailable ; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S.
631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289.
In practice it is not usual for the court to reject the report of a master, with his findings upon the matter referred to him, unless exceptions are taken to them and brought to its attention, and, upon examina tion, the findings are found unsupported or defective in some essential particular ; Cal laghan v. Myers, 128 U. S. 617, 9 Sup. Ct. 177, 32 L. Ed. 547.
The court will not interfere with a report of a master upon a question of fact depend ing upon the credibility of witnesses, unless an error is clearly made to appear ; Izard v. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309 ; Sinnickson v. Bruere, id. 659 ; the report has not the po sition of a verdict on a motion for a new trial at law, but on exceptions on a question of fact it is only necessary to review and weigh the evidence ; Holmes v. Holmes, IS N. J. Eq. 144 ; and it will not he overruled because the evidence is vague and conflicting, unless the conclusion is unwarranted by the evidence ; id. The theory that it stands as a verdict obtains only when the findings are deductions ftom incorporated facts ; McCon omy v. Reed, 152 Pa. 42, 25 Atl. 176.