
    Dick v. Huidekoper.
    
      Appeals — Practice, C. P. — Findings of fact — Referee.
    On an appeal from an order disposing of exceptions to report of a referee, where the appellate court discovers that there has been no finding as to a material fact, the record will be remitted with direction that the court below recommit the case to the referee to make such finding subject to the review of»the court.
    Argued April 24,1906.
    Reargued Jan. 21,1907.
    Appeals, No. 283, Jan. T., 1905, and No. 2, Jan. T., 1906, by both plaintiff and defendant, from decree of C. P. Crawford Co., Nov. T., 1900, No. 1, disposing of exceptions to referee’s report in case of Samuel B. Dick v. Arthur C. Huidekoper.
    Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.
    
      Exceptions to referee’s report.
    
      D. T. Watson, with him George F. Davenport, Alfred G. Church and Johns Me Cleave, for appellant.
    
      Samuel S. Mehard, with him John O. McClintoch and John E. Reynolds, for appellee.
    May 27, 1907:
   Per Curiam,

In this case we have not discovered error in connection with any question of fact or of law that was raised and passed upon below. On the material question of fact as to whether Dick advanced for Huidekoper in the nature of a loan, 3,000 shares of the capital stock of the Pittsburg, Shenango & Lake Erie Railroad Company in what is known as the Carnegie deal, there is no distinct finding, and the record is remitted with direction that the court recommit the case to the referee, that he may pass upon, subject to its review', this one question, on the evidence already taken before him; and, if there should be a finding that such stock was advanced for Huidekoper, in the nature of a loan, Dick is to be credited with the same, at its market value at the time of the trial before the referee, December 9, 1901, together with interest.  