The reference of a whole case to a master has become in late years a matter of more common occurrence than formerly, though it has always been within the power of a court of chancdry, with the consent of both parties, to order such a reference. The power is in cident to all courts of superior jurisdiction, and is covered in most of the states by stat utes ; Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 525, 9 Sup. Ct. 355, 32 L. Ed. 764, followed in Fur rer v. Ferris, 145 U. S. 132, 12 Sup. Ct. 821, 36 L. Ed. 649. Under the equity rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, of Feb ruary 1, 1913 (33 Sup. Ct. xix), a reference of an equity case to a master is exceptional save in matters of account ; it is made only on cause shown. Rules 59 to 67 regulate the practice. Rule 68 authorizes the district judge to' appoint standing masters and mas ters pro hac vice in any particular case.
In most jurisdictions, where an action is properly in equity, the court has a right to refer it to a master, without consent of par ties; State v. Orwig, 25 Ia. 280 ; and such was the regular practice in Pennsylvania un til new rules, made by the supreme court, re quired equity cases to be tried by the judges in open court on viva voce testimony. A case cannot be referred to a master to re port as to jaw and facts on evidence taken before another master ; Coel v. Glos, 232 Ill. 142, 83 N. E. 529, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 213.
The duties of the masters are, generally ; first, to take accounts and make computa tions ; Ransom v. Winn, 18 How. (U. S.) 295, 15 L. Ed. 388 ; Merriam v. Barton, 14 Vt. 501 ; second, to make inquiries and report facts ; Mason v. Crosby, 3 W. & M. 258, Fed. Cas. No. 9,236; In re Hemiup, 3 Paige (N. Y.) 305 ; Izard v. Bodine, 9 N. J. Eq. 309 ; Sparhawk v. Wills, 5 Gray (Mass.) 423 ; tMrd, to perform some special ministerial acts, directed by the court, such as the sale of property ; Morton v. Sloan, 11 Humphr. (Tenn.) 278; Ryan v. Dox, 25 Barb. (N. Y.) 440 ; settlement of deeds ; see Woodcock v. Bennet, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 711, 13 Am. Dec. 568; appointment of new trustees, and the like ; 1 Barb. Ch. Pr. 468 ; fourth, to discharge such duties as are specially charged upon them by statute.
In the federal courts the judges are pro hibited by statute from appointing as mas ters any relation within the degree of first cousin ; Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. Fish er, 1 Fed. 91; or except when special rea sons exist therefor, a clerk of a federal court; 20 Stat. L. ch. 415; but consent of
parties is held to be sufficient special reason ; Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathiesson, 3 Cliff. 146, Fed. Cas. No. 14,398; Kerosene Lamp Heater Co. v. Fisher, 1 Fed. 91.
Cases in which reference to the master should be ordered are: Where inquiries as to compensation or damages do not involve such complexity of facts or amounts as to require an issue; Springle's Heirs & Adm'rs v. Shields, 17 Ala. 295; to ascertain what are "usual covenants" according to local usages; Wilson v. Wood, 17 N. J. Eq. 216, 88 Am. Dec. 231; where plaintiff in a bill for specific per formance shows his right to a conveyance, but the defendant by sale or otherwise, has put it out of his power to convey ; Wood cock v. Bennet, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 711, 13 Am. Dec. 568 ; to settle the account in cases in volving mixed questions of law and fact ; Samble v. Ins. Co., 1 Hall (N. Y.) 617; to inquire into the true value of the property at the time of sale, where an application was to reform a deed made by trustees in relation to trust property where the rights of infants were concerned ; Saltus v. Pruyn, 18 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 512 ; to ascertain the damages suffered by defendant by reason of an in junction, where the plaintiff failed to main tain his cause or discontinued it ; Teaks v. Schmidt, 19 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 413 ; to ascer tain whether property given to a child on marriage was intended as an advancement in marriage, or as payment of a legacy; Myers v. Myers, 2 McCord Ch. (S. C.) 268, 16 Am. Dec. 648 ; to ascertain the intention of the parties where the main issue was a latent ambiguity in a lease of coal lands, and a de cree was reversed after but little inquiry be low upon this point ; Midlothian Coal Min. Co. v. Finney, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 304. Where a controversy in equity turns upon facts and involves a variety of circumstances, it should be referred to a master to sift the testimony and collate and report the facts ; Appeal of Backus, 58 Pa. 186; and a court of chancery ought not to decide upon accounts mutually existing and controverted between the par ties without reference to a master ; Bland v. Wyatt, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 543. ' A court of chancery may direct the refer ence of a case to the master with authority to examine the defendant on oath, and such an examination will have the effect of an answer ; Templeman v. Fauntleroy, 3 Rand. (Va.) 434.