Smith v. Lloyd

• Decision Date: 19 May 1916
• Citation: 112 N.E. 615,224 Mass. 173
• Parties: SMITH v. LLOYD et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

224 Mass. 173

112 N.E. 615

SMITH

v.LLOYD et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 19, 1916.

Report from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Bill by Daniel L. Smith against John Bross Lloyd and others. The cause was submitted to a master, and plaintiff excepted to his report, and to an order denying motion to recommit. On report. Exceptions overruled, and final decree entered dismissing the bill.

Walter B. Grant and Daniel B. Ruggles, both of Boston, for plaintiff,

Edward F. McClennen and Jacob J. Kaplan, both of Boston, for defendants.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a suit in equity whereby the plaintiff seeks to establish a debt against the defendant and to reach and apply in payment thereof property of the defendant. An interlocutory decree was entered sending the case to a master ‘to find the facts and report the same to the court.’ An elaborate and comprehensive report has been made covering the issues raised by the pleadings in conformity to this decree. It contains no report of the evidence. On the coming in of the master's report the plaintiff moved that the cause be recommitted to the master for further findings and the report of parts of the evidence.

The terms of reference of a suit in equity to a master rests in each instance in the sound judicial discretion of the court. The master is not bound to report all the evidence unless required to do so by the order of reference. Without such requirement it is irregular to report the evidence at the request of either party. The duty of a master, whose rule directs him to find and report the facts in issue, is performed by a statement of his conclusions only, together with such narration of the facts as may be essential in order to enable the court to comprehend the steps by which his conclusions have been reached, and to decide whether they are correct. These principles long have been established. Nichols v. Ela, 124 Mass. 333, 336;Parker v. Nickerson, 137 Mass. 487, 490, 491. It is the duty of a master to report evidence so far as necessary to present intelligently and fairly any question of law raised before him at the hearing. East Tennessee Land Co. v. Leeson, 183 Mass. 37, 66 N. E. 427. But this does not mean that all the evidence can be required to be reported under a reference like the present, even by a request to rule that either party is not entitled to prevail on all the evidence. Young v. Winkley, 191 Mass. 575, 78 N. E. 377;Marra v. Bigelow, 180 Mass. 48, 61 N. E. 275;New York Bank Note Co. v. Kidder Press Manufacturing Co., 192 Mass. 391, 405, 78 N. E. 463. Nor does it mean that after the draft report has been submitted and parties know the decision of the master, then requests or exceptions relative to the point whether certain findings are supported by the evidence, may as matter of right render necessary the report of substantial parts of the evidence. So far as questions of law are raised during the progress of the hearing, then enough evidence must be included in the report to enable an intelligent review to be made of the correctness of the ruling, so far as it was necessary to make a ruling, as, for example, in the admission or exclusion of evidence. But the form of the presentrule was designed and had the effect to leave to the final determination of the master the decision of all matters of fact. Warfield v. Adams, 215 Mass. 506, 511, 102 N. E. 706. The master's report conformed to these principles.

The motion to recommit the report was addressed to the discretion of the court. Ordinarily such motion is not granted in the absence of...