
    Executors of Faitoute v. Haycock et al.
    On a bill for foreclosure, against infants and others, where any of the defendants have answered, the complainant cannot enter a rule of course to refer the cause to a master, except by consent of such defeüdants as have answered, or their solicitor.
    This was a bill for foreclosure. Part of the defendants were infants. One of the other defendants had answered, and a decree, pro confesso, was made against the others at the last term. At the same term, the clerk of the court was appointed guardian ad litem for the infant defendants. An appearance for the infants had been entered by the guardian, and a rule of course' entered in the clerk’s book to lefer the cause to a master. The master had made his report, and the cause was now set down for final hearing.
    
      E. Van Arsdale, for the defendant who had answered,
    objected- to the hearing, and contended that the proceeding was irregular, no consent in writing having been made by the defendant against whom a decree had not been made. He referred to Rule 16.
    
      A. Armstrong, for the complainant, in reply.
   The Chancellor.

The hearing cannot come on. The rule of reference having been entered without the consent of the defendant who has answered, the proceeding is irregular. The former pifule must be- vacated, and a rule now entered, referring the \ (cause to a master..  