Evening journal., 1913-08-09
Judge Bradford UphoId Master Mahaffys Report in the
Diamond State Steel Case Receivers Pay Back $21 467

November 15. 1912 Thereafter the
master reported his findings and con
clusions upon the smended exceptions
April 4, 1913. and final argument was
heard upon the masters report as
amended in connection with the
amended exceptions April 2S' 1913,
and the three succeeding days
Findings of the Master.
Generally speaking. and without go
ing into details at this point, the master
In his report concluded and recommend
ed fl that the unpaid taxable costs OF
this cause be apportioned equally be-
tween the fund representing the pro-
ceeds of sale OF the real estate and plant
covered bv the mortgage and bonds OF
the steel company and the fund con-
stitutng the general assets derived
from the balance of the estate OF that
company; l2l that the expenses OF the
administration of the estate OF the steel
company should be apportioned between
the two above mentioned funds IN a
manner as therein recommended. To the
above two findings and recommendations
no objection OF exception has been IN
terposed by anybody, and those findings
and recommendations are unoblection-
able. The master in and by his report
further finds that the receivers be sur
charged in their account in the sum OF
S2l 1875. representing the credits
claimed by the receivers for expendi-
lures held by the master to have been
improperly. unnecessarily and extrava.
gantly made for wages and salaries, Of
fee expenses. rents. travelling expenses
and divers other items unnecessary TO
enumerate. And he further finds that
the receivers are not entitled TO com
pensation of themselves. July g. 1907,
they received for their own services and
those of their counsel $4,000, OF which
S6250 was paid TO their counsel; the
remaining Sl6,750 being retained by
them for their own benefit. In their
petition of June 20, 1910, above refer
red to, they pray for a further allow
ance of Fifty Thousand Dollars or such
other sums as to the court may seem
proper for the compensation of them
selves and their counsel. The master
finds and recommends that a total al
lowance of S37 900 be made to the re-
ceivers for compensation OF themselves
and their counsel. of which $4,000. in.
AAN'iNE WHAT iNfN HAN iNidlIfM ANA AHfli
own benefit as above stated. should 60
TO the receivers, and $1,000 including
what their counsel had already receiv-
ed as above stated, should 60 to such
counsel; the result being that were il
not for the surcharge made by the mas
ter against the receivers they would re-
ceive in addition 10 the sum already
paid TO them for their own benefit the
additional amount of 81 1850. while they
would receive for the benefit of their
counsel the sum OF Sl0,750. in addition
TO what they had already received for
the benefit of such counsel To the find
ings and recommendation of the mas
ter touching surcharges as above men
toned and his failure to find that the
receivers were entltlcd TO the amount
of compensation claimed for them and
their counsel. exceptions have been filed
on the part OF the receivers On the
other hand. the said bondhoders and
general creditors have excepted to the
findings and recommendation of the
master in that, as claimed. he did not
surcharge the receivers in sufficient
amount. and also in that he allowed
10 the receivers for the benefit OF them
selves and their counsel larger sun
than was justihsble under the circum
etances.
Decisions Referred To.
a question which should he prelimi-
narily disposed Of relates 10 the con
clusiveness or weight which attaches To
the findings and conclusions OF n master
Of chancery upon disputed questions of
fact or mixed law and fact. On this
subject a number Of cases have been
cited by tho counsel for the respective
parties. Il is unnecessary 10 review
them in detail. They recognize clear
distinction between reference to a
master by the counsel of the parties. on
the one hand. and, on the other. a ref
erence to a master solely bv the action
of the court. I'm the former case the
parties virtually constitute the master
an arbitrator 10 decide questions Of fact
or Of mixed law and fact. where the tes.
tlmony or other evidence is conflicting
unless under exceptional circumstances
are conclusive upon them.
Where the reference is by the court
and hot through the consent of the par.
ties, a different rule applies; the finding
of the master on questions of fact
lcarrying with il less weight than in tho
former case IL has been said that il
such case the findings and concmsionl
lot master are merely advisory 10 IN,
court leaving the case open TO he deter
mined by the court upon the weight o
the evidence. The weight of authority
however. and the better reason clothe
the findings and conclusions of the mas
ter with a presumption of correctness
not liohtlV tO he Iicrauardod Trpicas d,
clear case the findings and conclusion
Of the master based upon conflicting tes
timony and evidence should not be dis
turbed; for the witnesses, not appearing
before the court, but testlfying befor
the master, the latter is IN a more ad
vantageous position from personal oh