R. 89. If permitted to do so, the plaintiff would, undoubtedly, have little difficulty in showing that the defendant is found within this district and is therefore in no position to claim the benefit of the privilege alluded to, but confining the case strictly to the stipulated facts it must be held that the defendant has waived any objection which it might have taken. The jurisdiction of this court was invoked by the defendant and it should abide the result in a forum of its own seeking. The motion to dismiss the action is denied.
Bey v. Pa. R. 00. 14.Blatchf. C. C.
v. CLARK and others.
'Oirouit Oow't, N. D. New York. June 11, 1884.)
EQUITY PRACTICE-QUESTIONS ARISING BEFORE MASTER.
All questions arising before a master in chancery should be presented to the court by objection and exception to his report. Before such report is made, the court will not entertain a motion to instruct the master while discharging his duties according to the best of his ability.
In Equity. Livingston Gifford, for complainant. George J. Sicard, for defendants. COXE, J. This is a motion to instruct the master in an equity action. The complainant has a patent for an "improvement in shutter hinges." The court heretofore sustained the patent and directed a decree for an injunction and an account. 13 FED. REP. 456. The infringing device introduced by the complainant on the trial was a hinge known as No. 1. On tbe accounting sbe sought to extend tbe investigation to several otber binges manufactured and sold by the defendants, contending that they were substantially the same as No. 1, and that tbey were covered by the decree. To this the defendants objected on the ground, inter alia, that the hinges other than No.1 do not infringe, and, in the absence of a decision by the court holding that they infringe, the master had no authority to proceed. This objection was sustained by the master and complainant's counsel excepted, and immediately gave notice of a motion for an order directing and instructing the master to take and state, and report to the court, an account covering all the hinges referred to. A certified copy of the proceedings before the master is presented upon this motion. But the master has made no report and has not sought instructioh or advice from the court. '1'he first objection interposed by the defendants is that this application is irregular and is not sustained by authority or the practice of the court. I am of the opinion that the objection is well taken. Rule 77 gives the master very general discretion in the conduct of
v. BROWN'S ADM'RS.
the investigation before him. He occupies, for the time being, the position of the court, and is not to be continually interfered with while discharging his duties to the best of his ability. It would create intolerable delays and confusion, besides putting an unnecessary burden upon the court to hold, that each time the master makes a ruling the aggrieved party may, by special motion, have it reviewed. The orderly, and it seems the generally accepted, procedure is, to and present all the questions arising before the master by exoeptions to his report. Let it be assumed that the direction asked for is within the discretion of the court. It has not been customary to exercise it, and, in my judgment, it ought not to be exercised in a case like the present, where the master simply makes a ruling, which he has an undoubted right to make. A decision for the complainant will be recorded for a precedent and the attention of the court continually occupied with similar applications. A simple and well understood system will thus be inv.olved in confusion and uncertainty. The weight of authority sustains the view here taken. Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathiesson, 3 Cliff. 146; Wooster v. Gumbirnner, ante, 167; Anon. 3 Atkyn, 524; Vanderwick v. Summerl, 2 Wash. C. C. 41, (head-note;) Daniell, Ch. Pro (5th Amer. Ed.) 1181. . The motion must be denied, but without prejudice to any other remedy the complainant may see fit to take.
LINTON and Wife
BROWN'S ADM'RS and others.
(Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. May 23,1884.)
DECLARATION OF TRUST-AcTUAL MANUAL DELIVERY NOT ESSENTIAl, TO ITS VALIDITY.
In ,cases of decl,arations of trust and deeds of conveyance or mortgage, when notlnng further IS expected to be done by the beneficiary or grantee to complete the transaction as a whole, a formal sealing and delivery, without an actual delivery to the other party, or to a third person for his use, will be sufficient to make the deed or operative immediately, unless something else exist or be done to qualify such formal delivery.
In Equity. Hill Burgwin, George W. Gnthrie, and James P. Colter, for complainants. George Shiras, Jr., and Joseph Buffington, for respondents. Before BRADLEY and ACHESON, JJ. BRADLEY, Justice. The bill in this case was filed by Augustus F. Linton and Phebe R.E. Elwina, his wife, against the administrators, with the will annexed, of James E. Brown, deceased, and against his widow, Kate L. Brown, and infant son, James E. Brown, Jr., (by his guardian, Charles T. Neale,) the Kittanning National Bank, and the