Cases which should not be referred to a master are: Where, on the settlement of a long account between the parties, the court has facts enough before it to strike the true balance, and both parties do not agree to or ask for reference ; Jewett v. Cunard, 3 Woodb. & M. 277, Fed. Cas, No. 7,310; where the evidence is al] written, and a decree can be rendered without difficulty ; Levert v. Redwood, 9 Port. (Ala.) 79 ; where it was sought to charge the heirs with a debt of their father, and it was necessary to decide whether the • heirs had received assets; Byrd's Adm'r v. Belding's Heirs, 18 Ark. 118; to ascertain the amount due on a promissory note; Savage v. Berry, 2 Scam. (Ill.) 545; where the issue is distinctly raised by the pleadings and testimony taken ; Morton T. Hudson, 1 Hoffm. Ch. (N. Y.) 312; on a bill for a specific performance of a contract of sale where the nature of the title distinctly appears ; Wi]lbanks v. Duncan, 4 Dessaus. (S. C.) 536.
Orders of reference to a master should specify the principles on which the accounts are to be taken, or the inquiry' proceeds, so far as the court shall have decided thereon; and the examinations before the master should be limited to such matters within the order as the principles of the decree or order shall render necessary ; Reinsen v. Remsen, 2 Johns. Ch. Y.) 495. In an order of reference to a master, the defendant may be directed to produce before the master "all books, papers and writings, in his custody or power," and may be examined on oath upon such interrogatories as the master may di rect, relative to the subject-matters of the reference; Hart v. Ten Eyck, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 513. Where upon an order to deliver over books, papers, etc., the court intends to permit it to be done upon his own ex parte affidavit merely, he is directed, generally, "to produce and deliver the same on oath," but when the party is directed to produce and deliver them on oath "before a master" or "under the direction of a master," it is that all parties interested may examine as to the full and fair compliance with the order ; Hallett v. Hallett, 2 Paige (N. Y.) 432. And the master should, in such a case, afford rea sonable time for such examination to be made, and interrogatories to the party to be framed ; id. Where an order of reference to make preliminary inquiries preparatory to a hearing upon the merits is not an order of course, under some rule of court, and is not assented to by all parties interested, such order can be obtained only by special appli cation to the court upon due notice to all parties who have appeared and have an in terest in the subject-matter ; Corning v. Bax
ter, 6 Paige (N. Y.) 178.
Where a case has been referred to a mas ter, the consent of parties will not confer up on him authority to examine into a matter not charged in the bill ; Gordon v. Hobart, 2 Sto. 243, Fed. Cas. No. 5,608 ; and if he re port as to a matter not referred to him the report quoad hoc is a nullity ; White v. Walk er, 5 Fla. 478.
It is his duty to report the facts, and not the mere evidence of facts, it being the prov ince of the court to apply the law to the facts found and not to draw inferences of facts from the evidence ; Goodman v. Jones, 26 Conn. 264. A master appointed to report the sum due on a mortgage is not authorized to decide on the title ; Howe v. Russell, 36 Me. 115.
A report of a master on facts submitted to him will be presumed to be true, and will not be reconsidered or set aside for an alleg ed or abuse of authority, unless it is clearly shown and the correction is requir ed in equity ; Howe v. Russell, 36 Me. 115.
It is improper for a master to perform any official act, as master, in a cause in which he is solicitor or a partner of the solicitor ; Brown v. Byrne, Walk. Ch. (Mich.) 453. Where a question before the master is as to the value of certain property, he should form an independent judgment of his own, and the method of taking an average of estimates as a conclusion is tolerated only from neces sity; Pilkington v. Cotton, 55 N. C. 238. A master cannot reopen a cause for fur ther testimony after the closing of the proofs and the submission of his draft report to the parties, without special order from the court, which will be granted only on the ground of surprise, and under the same circumstances that would induce the court to make such an order before the hearing ; Burgess v. Wil kinson, 7 R. I. 31. Where a master has re ported back a case in which he was ordered to take testimony, it is re8 adjudicate and the case will not be recommitted unless spe cific errors can be designated ; Russell v. Mc Lellan, 3 Woodb. & M. 157, Fed. Cas. No. 12,158.
After the report is prepared, it is proper for the master to hear exceptions and cor rect his report, or if he disallows them, to report them to the court with the evidence ; Brockman v. Aulger, 12 Ill. 277 ; but he not report all the testimony where the de cretal order under which he acts does not require it; Bailey v. Myrick, 52 Me. 132 ; Simmons v. Jacobs, id. 147. It is said that the master's conclusions of law need not be first excepted to ; Gay Mfg. Co. v. Camp, 68 Fed. 67, 15 C. C. A. 226, citing 2 Dan. Ch. Pr. 1314.