CROUCH VS. SMITH. 405

called upon to consider the effect which should be given to the
valuation made by commissioners, appointed to make partition
of the real estate among the parties entitled; and upon full ar-
gument and deliberation it was decided, that though such valu-
ation was not conclusive, and might be rejected if clearly shown
to be erroneous, yet still it was entitled to great respect, and
would not be disturbed unless the weight of evidence in oppo-
sition to it was decidedly preponderating.

The commissioners were regarded as occupying the double
capacity of arbitrators and witnesses, and it was thought that
the court would not be justified in reversing their judgment,
unless upon evidence of error as strong or stronger than would
induce a court of law to reject the verdict of a jury, and order
a new trial. Such was the view taken by this court of the prin-
ciple which should govern it, when dealing with the valuation
of commissioners in cases of partition, and no reason is seen
why the same rule should not be observed on this occasion,
when the judgment of persons selected by the parties interest-
ed, is under review.

Supposing, then, that these petitioners, Crouch and Lazenby,
had impeached the valuation of the commissioners in this case,
upon the ground of its being excessive, (which, however, they
have not done,) it certainly would be incumbent upon them to
make out a strong case to induce the court to reject it.

This they have not only failed to do, but the case is wholly
destitute of proof upon the point. Not a single witness has said
that the valuation is too high, and the petitioners attempt to
make out their case upon the hypothesis, that the commission-
ers in forming their judgment, did not take into consideration
the clause in the codicil to the will, by which another source
of supply of wood and timber was provided for Mr. Smith.
And this course of reasoning is adopted, although one of the
commissioners says, expressly, in his evidence, that the will and
codicil was before them, and that they were aware of the rights
of Smith under them. In view of these circumstances, and
looking to the evidence of Henry W. Tomlin, one of the parties
in interest, identical with the petitioners, and that of George