PER CURIAM.
Only questions of fact are presented. The Master found in favor of plaintiff. The Circuit Court approved. It is not clearly made to appear that their findings were wrong.
Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., ROBERTS, J., and TAYLOR, Associate Justice, concur.
CHAPMAN, J., concurs specially.
CHAPMAN, Justice (concurs specially).
The primary question presented on this appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the decree entered below. We have studied the record in light of contentions of counsel for appellants and it is our conclusion, based upon a careful consideration of the whole record, that reversible error has not been made to appear. On numerous occasions we have held that the findings of a Chancellor on disputes and conflicts in the testimony will not be disturbed, unless such findings are clearly shown to be erroneous. Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769, 116 So. 497; Willis v. Van Woy, 155 Fla. 465, 20 So.2d 690, and similar cases.
As to the contention that the amount of the allowance to the Special Master as stated in the final decree was more than authorized by Section 62.07 F.S.A., and our adjudications, we have here a large record and considerable time was given to the taking of testimony, a study of the transcript and controlling authorities were required so as to make a proper report to the Chancellor. We are not justified in interfering with the amount of the allowance complained of. We fail to find error in the record.