
    Mallory Manuf’g Co. v. Fox and others.
    
      (Circuit Court, S. D. New York.
    
    May 30, 1884.)
    1. Equi y IIulf. No. 82 — Not to be Invoked to Collect Disbursements Tax-abl ¡ as Costs.
    T us eighty-second equity rulo cannot be invoked by a party to enable him to coll'd of the opposite party disbursements which can be taxed as part of the cost i in a final decree.
    2. ÜON'I DIPT — PUNISHMENT—IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF MONEY JuDlf-mei r — PowkRS of United States Courts — Controlled by State Courts.
    T ie power of United Slates courts to punish for contempt and imprison for non payment of money judgments is circumscribed and controlled by state law ;.
    3. Sami -Non-Payment of Monf.y — Execution—Order of Court in Nature of judgment — When not Enforced on Theory that Disobedience is a Coi tempt.
    I) a state whore proceedings for contempt for the non-payment of money ord red by the court to bo paid cannot be had when the payment can be en-for< ed by execution, and imprisonment for non-payment of costs is abolished, wli- n an order of the court is in the nature of a judgment or decree for the paj :ient of money, it cannot be enforced on the theory that disobedience is a con empt.
    In 1 iquity.
    
      Eug me Treadwell, for complainant.
    
      Wtjl )js Hodges, for defendants.
   Wat lace, J.

The complainant moves for an order fixing the master’s c impensation for his services upon an accounting under an interior tory decree, and directing the same to be paid by the defendants. The bill of the master, as certified by him, is not deemed un-reasoi able by either party, but the contention is as to what portion of it s muid be borne by each. The eighty-second equity rule contemplates that the court shall charge the master’s compensation upon such i f the parties as the circumstances of the case render proper, but tli at rule is for the benefit of the master, and is to he enforced upon lis application and for his protection. It cannot be invoked by a parí y to enable him to collect of the opposite party disbursements which he may have incurred, and which can be taxed as part of the costs n the final decree. By the laws of this state proceedings cannot be bad as for a contempt for tbe non-payment of money ordered by the court to be paid when the payment can be enforced by execution, and imprisonment for non-payment of costs is abolished. Tbe power of the courts of tbe United States to punish for contempt and impriscm for non-payment of money judgments is circumscribed and controlled by the laws of tbe state; and where an order made in tbe progress of the cause is of tbe character in substance of a judgment or decree for the payment of money, it cannot be enforced upon tbe theory that disobedience is a. contempt. Rev. St. §§ 725, 990; In re Atlantic Mutual Ins. Co. 17 N. B. R. 368; The Blanche Page, 16 Blatchf. 1; Catherwood v. Gapete, 2 Curt. 94; U. S. v. Tetlow, 2 Low. 159; Low v. Durfee 5 Fed. Rep. 256.

The motion is denied.  