858' FBDBBAL REPORTER. �Orleans, 1 Woods, 104; Ghurch v. Jaques, 3 Johns. Ch. 77; Qkaves V. Ferguson, 2 Tenu. Ch. 589; Gordon v. Lewis, 2 Sumn. 143 ; Bylng- ton V. Wood, 1 Paige, 145. �InStory v. Livingston, 13 Pet. 359, the court say: �"Strictly, in chancery practice, though it is different in sorae of our states, no exceptiona to a master's report can be made which were net takeii bef-^re the master; the object being to save time and to give him an opportunity to correct his error or to reconsider his opinion. Dick. 103. A party neglecting to bring in objections cannot afterwards except to the report, (Harr. Ch. 479,) unless the court, on motion, see reason to be dissatisfled with the report, and refer it to the master to review his report, with liberty to the party to take objection to it. 1 Dick. 290; Madd. Kep. 340, 555. But, without restrict- ing exceptions to this course, we must observe that exceptions to a report of a master must state, article by article, those parts of the report which are iutended to be excepted to," �White the practice contended for by the complainant is here referred to as correct, according to strict rule, the court declined to enforce it against the excepting party. �McMicken v. Perin, 18 How. 507, was decided in 1855, some years after the adoption of the equity rules, and without alluding to rule 88. After referring to Story v. Livingston as deciding that no objec- tions to a master's report can be made which are not taken beforo the master, the court says: "The court will not review a master's report upon objections taken here for the first time." The exceptions to the master's report had not been taken in the circuit court, but for the first time in the supreme court. �The practice contended for by the complainant was referred to in Story V. Livingston as being correct according to strict rules, without, however, being enforoed; and in McMicken v. Perrin the question was not before the court. �Masters are usually employed in taking accounts and making computations, and in making inquiries and reporting facts. In ref- erences of this character drafts of the reports have been prepared before argument, and argument was heard before the master only on objections to the drafts. In such cases it is clear the parties were entitled to inspect the reports and to be heard on such parts of them as were objected to. But if a reference is made embracing questions of law as well as fact, and after hearing the testimony and the argu- ments of counsel, as was done in this case, the master prepares a report of his findings, I can see no good reason for observing the for- malities of the old practice. It resembles a trial befoi-e a referee ��� �
