
    Myers against Bradford and others.
    April 18th
    and June 13th.
    There is no precise time for filing exceptions to the report of a Master on the insufficiency of an answer, as it does not require confirmation.
    On filing the report, the plaintiff may immediately sue out a subpoena, for a better answer, and for costs; and if the defendant does not file exceptions to the report, and obtain an order for setting them down for hearing, within eight days from the service of the subpoena, the plaintiff may sue out-an attachment; after which, the defendant cannot except to the report.
    PETITION of the plaintiff, stating, that the defendant, B., put in his separate answer, the 24th of December, 1819, to the plaintiff’s bill. That notice of exceptions to the answer was served on the agent of the plaintiff’s solicitor, on the 14th of January last. Sixteen days having expired, and no notice of submitting to answer the exceptions being received, an order was entered on the 31st of January, referring the exceptions to a Master residing at Poughkeepsie, in Dutchess county. That I. Hooker, the Master, summoned the defendant (who lives in the city of JYew-York) to appear at the hearing, on the 11th of February, which summons was duly served on the defendant’s solicitor, the 4th of February. That the defendant not appearing at the day appointed, the Master proceeded to hear the exceptions ex parte, and decided that they were well taken. This report was filed four days thereafter, and a subpoena for further answer served on the 22d of February. On the 6th of March, the defendants, on petition, obtained an order, that the defendants have four weeks, from the 3d of March, to except to the Master’s report, instead of answering the exceptions, and that, in the mean time, the question of costs, up,on the exceptions, be reserved. That, this order was obtained without notice, and was irregular. That being ignorant of the order of the 6th of March, the plaintiff, on petition, which was served on the defendant’s solicitor, obtained an order, on the 20th of March, that the‘ defendant pay the costs of the exceptions, and the proceedings subsequent, to compel a further answer ; which order was taken, without any opposition, and the notice of taxation for the 31st of March, served. On the 25th of March, the plaintiff’s solicitor first received a copy of the order of the 6th of March, which had not been served on his agent. That on the 30th of March, the defendant obtained another rder, ex parte, without notice, enlarging ¿he time for excepting the report twelve days. The plaintiff prayed that dhe om.-rs of the 3d and 20th of March, olbitiitred by him, might be confirmed; and that the ex parte ciiderr of tlw defendants, of the 6th and 30th of March, might be vacated, and that the defendants pay the costs of the application. After reading the affidavit of the defendants’ solicitor, an order was entered, Jpril 18th, 1820, ordering that 4»-' further consideration of the motion be postponed to djo t ¡ir í day of the next term of this Court, “ to the end, shat i«:e hearing of the exceptions to the" Master’s report waay be brought on, and the same be considered in connection v tv this motion.”
    The questions arising on this order, were argued by P. Haggles, for the plaintiff; and by
    
      Griffin, for the defendants.
   The Chancellor.

The orders of the 6 th and 30th of March last, were irregular, as they were obtained ex parte, without notice. The defendants were in default, (1.) In not appearing before the Master on the 11th of February; and, (2.) in not excepting to the Master’s report prior to the 30tb of March. The English practice appears to be, (Hinde, 272, 273. Newland’s Pr. 175.) that with respect to exceptions to a report which does not require confirmation, as oi the insufficiency of an answer, there is no precise time for filing them. Upon filing the report, the plaintiff may immédiately sue out a subpoena for a better answer and for costs; and if the defendant does not file excéptions, and obtain an order for setting them down within eight days from the service of the subpoena, the plaintiff may sue out an attachment; after wdiich the defendant cannot except to the report.

The exceptions to the report, assuming them to have been filed in season, were not well taken. The answers were not sufficiently precise and full, and did not meet and answer all the circumstances from whence a fraudi-lent combination ivas to be inferred. The exceptions to the report are, consequently, overruled, and the defendants must, within fourteen days, answer the exceptions to the answers which bat e been allowed by the Master, and pay the costs accruing to ‘the plaintiff since filing the said exceptions, or Viiat an attachment issue.

Order accordingly.  