Hayes v. Hammond

• Decision Date: 13 June 1896
• Citation: 162 Ill. 133,44 N.E. 422
• Parties: HAYES v. HAMMOND et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

162 Ill. 133

44 N.E. 422

HAYES

v.HAMMOND et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 13, 1896.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Bill by John Hammond and others against David B. Hayes to enforce a mechanic's lien. A decree for complainants having been affirmed by the appellate court, defendant appeals. Affirmed.English & Hefferan, for appellant.

Defrees, Brace & Ritter, for appellees.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Appellees filed their bill against appellant to enforce a mechanic's lien. The bill was answered, and the cause was referred to the master in chancery to take and report to the court the evidence, with his conclusions of fact ana law thereon. The master took and returned into court the evidence and his conclusions, finding that there was due the complainants the sum of $1,307.13, with interest thereon at the rate of 5 per cent. from September 7, 1893, and that they were entitled to a lien for that sum. Objection having been made by appellant to the report while in the master's hands, it was excepted to, and the cause was heard upon the exceptions. They were overruled, and a decree was entered for said sum of $1,307.13, with interest from the time of filing the bill. On appeal to the appellate court that decree was affirmed. A claim is made on the part of appellees that the exceptions of appellant could not be considered by the chancellor or on appeal, because they do not set forth the evidence upon which appellant relies. It is claimed that a party excepting must point out the evidence bearing on the disputed questions of fact either by incorporating the same into the exceptions or by reference to the names of the witnesses and the numbers of the pages on which such evidence is recorded. The report of the master as to his conclusions of fact is in the nature of a special verdict, and the chancellor sits only to revise it upon exceptions properly presented. These exceptions are somewhat in the nature of special demurrers, and should not be prolix or argumentative, but must state specifically and concisely the findings that are excepted to. Moffett v. Hanner, 154 Ill. 649, 39 N. E. 474. In the absence of any statute, the master did not report the evidence to the court, and it was necessary for the parties to apply to him for certified copies of such evidence as they might require relating to matters excepted to; but by our statute the whole of the evidence is reported to the court, and the parties may select from it such portions as are relevant to the exceptions, and present them to the court. It seems to be supposed that the chancellor is required to do this work, and will be compelled to search through the evidence to find testimony which will sustain the exceptions, unless it is pointed out in the exceptions themselves. But this is not the duty of the chancellor, nor is it the practice. As the hearing is only upon exceptions, the chancellor is not required to hear any evidence except such as relates to the matters excepted to, and may, by any proper rule, effect that object, such as by requiring the evidence as to such matters to be abstracted or otherwise presented in convenient and proper form; but it is not the practice in this state to recite the evidence in the exceptions. The rule is the same as stated by the supreme court of the United States in Foster v. Goddard, 1 Black, 506, as follows: ‘All that is necessary is that the exception should distinctly point out the finding and conclusion of the master which it seeks to reverse. Having done so, it brings up for examination all questions of fact and of law arising upon the report of the master on that subject.’ It was also there said that such rule accorded with the experience of the judges of that court in equity practice elsewhere. Where the facts are stated correctly by the master, but it is claimed that he has drawn a wrong legal conclusion from them, no exception is necessary. 2 Daniell, Ch. Prac. 1310. In this case there are sufficient proper and specific exceptions to raise the questions argued by the parties.

Several objections are made to the claim for lien filed in the office of the...