That question, as do the other two questions involved in this petition for review that need not be quoted, obviously involves a question of fact. In In re Cox, W.D.Mo. 1965, 244 F.Supp. 430 at 433, we set forth at length our duties as a reviewing court under General Order in Bankruptcy No. 47. We here incorporate what we said there by this reference.
"As the parties acknowledge, this Court, in reviewing the findings of fact of the bankruptcy judge, must affirm factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. In re Taylor, 514 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir. 1975); In re Cox, 244 F. Supp. 430 (W.D.Mo. 1965)." Matter of Shurback, Civil Action No. 80-0818-CV-W-1 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 17, 1980, Oliver, J.).
This is not a trial de novo; the question is not what this court would have found on the evidence which was before the Court of Bankruptcy. In Re Cox, 244 F. Supp. 430 (W.D.Mo. 1965). The "clearly erroneous" rule applies by virtue of the express mandate of General Order 47. "[T]he judge shall accept (the referee's) findings of fact unless clearly erroneous."
I Consistent with the principles stated in In re Cox (W.D.Mo., 1965), 244 F. Supp. 430, 433, we accept the Referee's finding as made in paragraphs 1 through 7, inclusive, 11 and 12 of his Findings of Fact. Findings 8 through 10 are not accepted because they are not relevant to any question presented in the case. It is necessary that this Court make additional findings, 5a, 5b, 5c and 7a which are relevant.
The Referee treated the Weisenburg lien as valid, and I do also. See In re Cox, 244 F. Supp. 430 (W.D.Mo. 1965). A more complete discussion of the problem appears in 4A Collier on Bankruptcy, para. 70.99 [6] (1969):
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, and a finding is not supported by substantial evidence if it is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence. In re Cox, 244 F. Supp. 430, 434-35 (W.D.Mo. 1965). The Supreme Court has consistently held that "[a] finding is `clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."