specific does not conflict with the other rule that, in chancery, it is not necessary to take exceptions to the various decisions of the master, or court, made in the progress of the trial.1 § 386. Form of notice.- Notwithstanding that in some of the federal circuit courts the English rule requiring the filing of objections with the master has been relaxed, and the looser practice prevails of allowing parties to file exceptions to the report not based on any previous objections, under, as I think, an erroneous construction of United States Equity Rule 83, yet the better course in all cases is to submit a draft report to counsel, and permit them to file objections with the master if they so desire, as a foundation for exceptions to be afterwards filed with the clerk. Such a course in no way conflicts with the provisions of the rule referred to. Notice that the draft report is prepared and ready for inspection should be regularly served upon all parties interested, that is upon all parties who are entitled to appear before the master, no matter whether they appeared or not. For example, parties defaulted for want of an answer, though they have never appeared before the master, and creditors, who, by leave of court, come in to prove up their claims, are entitled to this notice. In a case where there are complainants, cross-complainants, defendants, cross-defendants and creditors, who came in to prove up their claims, the notice may be in form as follows: Notice that Draft Report is Ready. STATE OF ILLINOIS, V. Adam H. Miller, Clara J. Miller, James T. Fry and George W. Drexel. ss. In the Circuit Court of Cook County. Gen. No. 192,784. To John A. Barnes, solicitor for complainant, Aaron V. Shaw, solicitor for cross-complainant, William H. Barrow, solicitor for defendants, Henry W. Brown, solicitor for cross 1 Thornton v. Commonwealth L. & B. Ass'n, 181 Ill. 456, 459, 54 N. E. 1037; Chicago Artesian Well Co. v. Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 57 2 As to who are entitled to appear, see ante, §§ 184, 185. defendants, and Charles D. Wharton, solicitor for John I. Rogers and Samuel P. Mills, creditors, who, by leave of court, came their claims: in to prove up Please take notice, that I havé prepared a draft of my report in the above entitled cause, and that Monday, the 22d day of September, A. D. 1902, will be the last day for filing objections to the same. WM. FENIMORE COOPER, Master in Chancery of the Circuit Court of Cook County. Dated, Chicago, Illinois, September 18, A. D. 1902. Received a copy of above notice, this September 18, A. D. 1902.1 Form of Notice, United States Circuit Court. Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Sirs: You are hereby notified that I have prepared the draft of my report upon the matters referred to me as master, by the interlocutory decree herein, dated the 30th day of November, A. D. 1901, and that a copy of such draft report accompanies and is annexed to this notice and is herewith served upon you; you are also hereby notified that I shall sign and file said draft report as my report herein, unless alterations are made by me therein, upon suggestions of counsel for either party hereto, and that I'appoint the 19th day of January, A. D. 1902, at my office, room 10, No. 27 Wall street, in the city and county of New York, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon of said day, for counsel for either party hereto to present to me any suggestions of amendments to or alterations of said. draft report, and to file with me written objections thereto, if any they have to the same, Yours, etc., CORNELIUS DEWEY, Master. Dated, New York, December 18, A. D. 1901. To Messrs. Colt & Hine, Plaintiff's Solicitors, 1092 Broadway, and Thomas Bradley, Defendant's Solicitor, 130 Broadway, New York City." If the parties do not acknowl 2 Adapted from Beach's Modern edge service, then affidavit should Equity Practice, vol. 2, p. 1308. be made. For form, see ante, § 199. § 387. Form of objections to draft report. The objections to the master's draft report may be as follows, to wit: Objections to Draft Report. Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Objections taken by Richard Roe, defendant in this cause, to the draft of the general report of Cornelius Dewey, the master to whom this cause is referred. First. For that the said master hath not, in and by the draft of the said report, charged the plaintiff with the sum of $480.00, being one quarter's rent due from the plaintiff to the defendant from January 1, 1902, to April 1, 1902, which sum the master should have charged against the plaintiff. Second. For that the said master hath disallowed the credit taken by this defendant in Schedule G. of the accounts filed with the said master, of the sum of $2,511, under date of December 15, 1901, which sum said master ought to have allowed as a credit to this defendant. Third. For that, etc.1 In all which particulars the defendant submits that the draft of said report ought to be varied and altered. JOHN M. BROOKS, Solicitor for Defendant. The fil 388. Passing upon objections to draft report. ing of objections with the master of course implies that they must be passed upon by him. If he sustains an objection he modifies or reverses his finding, as stated in the draft report, as the case may be. It is said that the mere filing of objections to the master's report is not sufficient, but the party must appear before him with due diligence to proceed upon the same, and if he does not the master should overrule his objections, noting that he does so because the party would not appear to support them, and proceed as if no objections had been taken to his report. Yet, in actual practice, parties are not required or expected to appear before the master and pre 12 Newland, Ch. Pr. 375; 3 Hoffman, Ch. Pr. 166; Hoffman, Master in Chancery, 358; Bennett, Master's Office, 125. 2 Quin v. Bodkin, 1 Beatty, 338; 2 Barbour, Ch. Pr. 548. sent an argument in support of their objections, and, failing so to do, the master examines the same and corrects the error pointed out, if satisfied of its existence, otherwise he overrules the objection and the question is thus passed on to the chancellor for revision. If either party desires to present an argument in support of objections, the master should fix a time when he will hear the same. Of course, if the master, upon reconsideration of his finding, in the light of objections specifically pointing out alleged errors, is satisfied that the objection is well taken, he should cheerfully make the desired correction. Many errors pointed out by objections to the draft report relate to mistakes of computation, or other matters, which need only to be indicated to require correction; yet, in graver and more important particulars, the master, like the chancellor, when once convinced that he has committed an error or mistake as to a conclusion of either law or fact, should never allow either his pride or dogged persistence to interfere with the discharge of a duty, but should frankly concede and correct the error, and thus, perhaps, save the parties the delay and expense of a re-reference. It is said to be the duty of the chancellor, when satisfied that he has committed an error, to correct it at the earliest opportunity,' and, of course, the same rule applies to masters in chancery. Yet, conclusions arrived at after full argument and mature consideration should not be lightly changed. The hearing before the master on objections to his findings is in the nature of a rehearing as to all matters previously contested and covered by such objections. As to all matters upon which full argument has been heard and carefully considered by the master, his conclusions or findings based thereon should not be disturbed, unless the objecting party shall be able to convince him that he has made a mistake or otherwise has committed error. Unless the objecting party can or does present some new and substantial reason therefor, the master should adhere to his findings. It is hardly in the power of the human mind, surely not of the sound judicial mind, after 1 Gibson v. Rees, 50 Ill. 383, 410; Fourniquet v. Perkins, 16 How. (U. S.) 82, 86; Fort Dearborn Lodge v. Klein, 115 Ill. 177, 181, 3 N. E. 272, 56 Am. R. 133; Fish v. Farwell, 160 Ill. 236, 241, 43 N. E. 367; Jeffery v. Robbins, 167 IL 375, 387, 47 N. E. 725. forming deliberate opinions on long arguments and much examination, to change at once its conclusions, merely on a repetition of the same arguments and the same facts. Opinions thus liable to change would be as worthless after alteration as they were before. The changes which are valuable and to be reasonably expected are on new matter, new light, new information.1 Judge Story, speaking of such fickleness of judg ment, remarked: "I fear that suits would become immortal."? The practice is not uniform among the masters in Chicago in reporting to the court the disposition made of objections to their findings filed with them after making up their draft reports. Some of them set out a full statement of each objection and the disposition of same, with an argument in support of the position taken by the master, while others make a short, general statement of the objections and their rulings thereon, and yet others are content with a bare statement of their action indorsed on the back of the objections. Of the first it may be said that it has its advantages and disadvantages. Masters, like judges, take pride in having their findings sustained, and this course enables the master to present to the court fully his reasons in support of his action thereon, but against this it is said to be unfair for the master, who has made a judicial ruling upon a matter before him, to send an argument along with it, in favor of the contention of one of the parties, a course absolutely useless, unless intended to influence the chancellor whose duty it is to review such ruling. Judge Higbee, one of the ablest judges Illinois ever produced, used to say, in reply to counsel's request for reasons in support of his rulings, "If the court is right there is no necessity to give any reasons; if wrong, the less said about it the better." Where a master sustains an objection he modifies his report accordingly, when, if the objecting party is still dissatisfied with the master's finding, it is his duty to again object, as it is only the master's act in overruling objections that he can ask the court to review. It is probably the better course for a master, where he overrules an objection, to simply say so in the fewest possible words. 1 Mr. Justice Woodbury in Tufts v. Tufts, 3 Woodb. & M. 426, 429, Fed. Cas. 14,232. 2 Jenkins v. Eldridge, 3 Story R. 299, 305, Fed. Cas. 7,267. |