Case ID: mass_165/html/0119-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Holmes, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

J. H. Flitner vs. Benjamin F. Butler & others.
    Suffolk.
    December 11, 1895. —
    January 2, 1896.
    Present: Field, C. J., Allen, Holmes, Knowlton, & Lathbop, JJ.
    
      Equity — Master’s Report — Decree.
    
    If a suit in equity is sent to a master, who reports that it was agreed before him that all the items in a book produced were correct as to dates and amounts, and that it was not disputed that there was a certain balance in the plaintiff’s favor, unless certain items were entered in such a way as to constitute a double charge against the defendant, and no exceptions are taken to the report, and the master’s explanation of the matter of the supposed double charge appears to this court to be correct, a decree for the amount found due by him in the plaintiff’s favor will be affirmed.
    Bill in equity, filed in the Superior Court, by the agent and managing owner of the bark Nereid, to recover of the defendants, as co-owners, their respective shares of the disbursements made by him as such agent. The case was referred to a master, who found and reported the amounts due to the plaintiff from the defendants respectively. A decree was entered in accordance with the findings of the master; and the defendants appealed to this court. The facts material to the point decided appear in the opinion.
    
      W. H. Baker, for the defendants.
    
      E. P. Carver, for the plaintiff.
   Holmes, J.

This is a bill by a managing owner against co-owners for contribution for payments made by him as agent of a bark. The case went to a master, who reported that it was agreed before him that all the items in a book produced were correct as to dates and amounts, and that it was not disputed that there was a balance of $1,316.51 in the complainant’s favor, unless certain items were entered in such a way as to constitute a double charge against the defendants. No exceptions were taken to the report, and no other question is open. The master explains the matter of the supposed double charge. We see no reason for doubting his explanation to be correct. Deeree affirmed.