856 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �Hatch V. Indianapolis & Speingfxeld E. Co. and others. �[Circuit Court, D. Indiana. January 21, 1882.) �1 . Mastees ts Chancery— Kepobts of, and Exceptions Theheto. �Masters are usually employed in taking accounts and making computations, and in making inquiries and reporting f acts. In such references it was usual for the masters to prepare drafts of their reports before argument, and argu- ment was heard by the masters only on objections to the drafts. In such cases, manifestly, parties were eutitled to an inspection of the drafts, and to be heard on their objections tliereto. �?. Samb — Practicb. , �But if a reference is made embracing questions of law and fact, and after �hearing the testimony, and the arguments of counsel, the master prepares a �report of his flndings, there is no good reason for observing the formalities of �- the old practice in submitting the report to the parties for hearing thereon �before the master. �3. Samb — Samb. �It is not the practice in this district, nor in this circuit, for the master, after having heard full argument, to submit a draft of his report to the parties for a hearing thereon upon objections thereto. When a case has been fully argued in the flrst instance the legal right of the unsuccessful party to make objec- tions before the master to the draft of his report, and argue the same, is not recognized in practice. �4. Samb— RuLES 77 and 83 of the Sdtremb Ooukt. �The rules of the supreme court for conducting references before masters pro- vide a simple and expeditious procedure, and were obviously intended to dis- pense with the old formalities incident to the settling, etc., of the master's report. Vide rules 77 and 83. These rules establish a procedure in themselves^ and reference to the practice of the high court of chancery in England, as it existed in 1842, for the formalities attending the settlement, or making of mas- ters' reports, and the entering of exceptions thereto, is unnecessary. �In Chancery. �Edwin H. Ahhott and C. D. Page, for complainant. �Baker, Hood e Hendricks, Bouche e Lamme, and James M. Johnson, for respondents. �Geesham, d. J. The bill in this case alleged that the railroad Company was indebted to the complainant in a large sum for labor and materials furnished in the construction of a part of the respond- ents' road; that certain stockholders, who were made defendants, had never paid their stock subscriptions ; and that the company was insolvent and the road had been abandoned. The court was asked to ascertain and decree the amount due from the company to the complainant; also for a decree against the individual stockholders, requiring them to pay into court a sum sufi&cient to satisfy the com- plainant's demand and costs of suit. ��� �
