wmnrne v. LA nan. 41
tially equal proportions; that from March 1, 1876, to May 1, 1879, the *
complainant had no competitor in the manufacture and sale of these
checks other than the defendant; that, during this period, the defendant
sold large quantities of infringing checks, which, in very much the larger
part, were sold to parties who were or had been regular customers of the
complainant; that the complainant was at all times ready and able to sup-
ply the market, and if the defendant had not interfered he would have
sold, in addition to his regular sales, at least the number of checks sold by
the defendant. Although the defendant’s infringement continued, in con-
nection with others, after May 1, 1879, the master limited the recovery to
damages sustained prior to that date, the measure being the loss of profits
which the complainant would have made had he sold the checks sold
by the defendant at the defendantfs prices. On the 28th of December,
1886, the defendant tiled exceptions, disputing the accuracy ofthe report
in 12 particulars, the principal grounds being the alleged errors of the
master in finding-—First, that "fiber white " was talc; secrmd, that the in-
fringing checks contained shellac and talc, in substantially equal parts;
third, that the defendant was a competitor, and the only competitor, of
the complainant; and, fourth, that the complainant was ready and able
to supply the market. Other exceptions allege error in the computation
and dispute the master’s conclusions of law. . ,  
Frederick H. Betts, for complainant. . .
Lucie·n’vBirdseye and James C’.·Oloyd, for defendant. A , F
Coxn, J., (after stctingthetfacts as above.) The master has decided as
question of fact which was not_ the subject of protracted and vehement
contention. Testimony was introduced by both parties. Experts were
called, and the disagreement between them was radical and irreconcila-
ble. Every forward step made by the complainant was vigorously re-
sisted bythe defendant. Between them the master was compelled to
decide. It is wise not to losesight of the fact that the court is not to de-
termine these facts de novo. "If the report has been fairly and honestly
rendered,. without undue influence or manifest error, it should be pen
mitted to stand. V It is a matter of no moment that a different result
might have been reached had the accounting been taken by the court.
If the record shows that there was testimony pro and crm, so that intelli-
gent minds might differ upon the questions presented, the court will not
assume to substitute its judgment for that of the master. His decision
upon disputed facts should be final. A master stands as the representa-
tive of the court. He is selected with special reference to his Htness and
~ experience. In seeing and hearing the witnesses he possesses advan-.
tages in determining questions of fact which a reviewing tribunal can
never have. A A master’s report is not to be lightly brushed aside. V It is
entitled to respect. The proceedings before him have almost thetsame
solemnity as a trial before a referee ora jury, and the familiar rule which
precludes the court from setting aside a verdict which is not against the
weight of evidencetis, to a great extent, applicable: Bates v. St. Johns-
ebury, 32 Fed.:Rep. 628; Welling v. La Baa, 32 Fed; Rep. 293; Metsker