Larkins v. . Murphy

*383 Reade, J. The taking and reporting an account by the Master or Clerk, to whom the Court has referred it, involves the exercise of the judgment and discretion of such referee, which he cannot delegate to another. And it is not proper -exercise of his judgment and discretion, when he simply ■ adopts an account which hasbeen stated by another, whether the account so adopted has been taken in the same suit, or in some other. “ A reference to the Master is generally made for one of the three following purposes, viz: the protection of absent parties against the possible neglect or malfeasance of the lit- . gants; the more effecting working out of details which the Judge, sitting in Court, is unable to investigate, and the supplying defects or failures in evidence.” Adams Eq. 379. -And in a note on the same page it is said : “The Master’s is a branch of the Court.” To take and report an account falls under the head of '“the working out of details.” When the Master has ascertained the facts and stated the account, he makes the report in which he sets forth the facts and his conclusions therefrom. And Mr. Adams says, “ that it is frequently advantageous but not necessary that he should also state the reasons which have induced his decision.” If there is no exception to the report by the parties, it is confirmed as a matter of course. And if there is exception the leaning of the Court is in favor of the report. From all this appears how important it is that the person taking the account and making the report should be the trusted and trustworthy appointee of the Court. And also how important it is that such person should find the facts himself and draw his own conclusions; and how improper it is for him to adopt the facts found and the conclusions ■ drawn by another, whether that other be his own appointee -or some third person. In the case before us, the clerk to whom it was referred, *384 instead of taking the evidence and drawing his own conclusions, adopted the account taken in another cause by some third person. For this cause, the decree confirming the report was properly vacated. In Rowland v. Thompson, 65 N. C. Rep. 110, it is said that the deputy of the Probate Judge, cannot perform any duty in taking an account except what is merely ministerial— such as adding figures, calculating interest, &c., and if he does any other act such as deciding the competency of evidence or any legal question, the adoption of his action by the Probate Judge does not validate it. No hardship will result to the defendant by reason of setting aside the decree, on account of his having paid out money to some of the plaintiffs under it, because his payments will be allowed under any other decree. There is no error. Let this be certified. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.