Interrogatory No. 2. If you shall say in answer to the
foregoing interrogatory that defendants purchased 176 head
of cattle, or any other number of head of cattle, at the time
and place mentioned in Interrogatory No. 1 state the name
of the person from whom defendants made purchase.
Interrogatory No. 3. Were all of the cattle so pur-
chased, transported from Kansas City, Missouri, to Owens-
boro, Kentucky, and received by the defendants in said ac-
tion, at Owensboro, Kentucky?
If you shall say in answer to this interrogatory that all
of the cattle purchased by the defendants in this action, at
Kansas City, Missouri, on December 28, 1914, were not re-
ceived in Owensboro, Kentucky, then say how many were
Interrogatory No. 4. State on what date the cattle that
were purchased on December 28, 1914, in Kansas City,
Missouri, arrived in Owensboro, Kentucky.
Interrogatory No. 5. How many of the cattle so pur-
chased by the defendants, in Kansas City, Missouri, on the
28th day of December, 1914, are now in the possession of
And if you shall state that the cattle so purchased by
the defendants in this action, in Kansas City, Missouri, on
the 28th day of December, 1914, are now in the possession
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A MASTER. 1115
of the defendants, state in what particular and specific place
these cattle may be found.
Interrogatory No. 6. Were the cattle so purchased by
the defendants in this action, in Kansas City, Missouri, on
December 28, 1914, in the possession of the defendants on
January 7, 1915?
Interrogatory No. 7. If you say that said cattle were
in the possession of the defendants on January 7, 1915,
state in what particular place in or near Owensboro, Ken-
tucky, they were. If you shall say in answer to the last
interrogatory that the cattle so purchased in Kansas City,
Missouri, on the 28th day of December, 1914, were in the
possession of- the defendants on the 7th day of January,
1915, in the cattle stables or cattle barns or barn on the
property of the Green River Distilling Company, then say
in which part of the barn or stables these cattle were lo-
Interrogatory No. 8. State whether or not the defend-
ants in this action owned or had any cattle in their posses-
sion prior to the 28th day of December, 1914.
If you shall say that they had cattle in their posses-
sion, state how many, and where these cattle were located.
Interrogatory No. 9. State whether or not any of the
cattle purchased by the defendants in this action, in Kan-
sas City, Missouri, on December 28, 1910, were ever inter-
mingled or mixed with any other cattle owned by the de-
Interrogatory No. 10. If you shall say that you have
not got in your possession now all of the cattle purchased
by the defendants in this action in Kansas City, Missouri,
on December 28, 1914, then say what became of those cattle
which you have not now in your possession.
E. B. ANDERSON,
C. M. FINN,
Attorneys for Plaintiff.
1116 SUITS IN EQUITY.
NOTE: Each of the defendants, Fred Hamilton, Bush-
rod J. Milton, and James S. Cruse, will answer the fore-
(1) See Federal Equity Rule 58; Simkins, A Federal Suit in Equity,
pp. 292-294; Hopkins' Federal Equity Rules, 2d ed., pp. 222, et seq. ;
Foster's Fed. Prac., 5th ed., Sec. 348.
In Luten v. Camp, 221 Fed. 424, it was held that under new Rule
58 the interrogatories are not a part of the pleadings as they were
under the former practice, and that hence a waiver of answer under
oath does not now relieve from the duty of answering interrogatories.
At page 427 the court says: "It is apparent that, in furtherance of
the purpose of simplifying the pleadings and of expediting the ascer-
tainment of the facts and final hearing, the purpose of Rule 58 was to
provide for a simple practice equally open to either party for inter-
rogating the other without such interrogatories becoming part of the
In J. H. Day Co. v. Mountain City Mill Co., 225 Fed. 622, the
court says at page 623: "After careful consideration I think it clear
that the 58th Equity Rule was intended merely to change the pro-
cedure in reference to obtaining discovery and to extend this right
to a defendant as well as to a plaintiff, and was not intended to change
the long-established rule in reference to the subject-matter of such
discovery or to extend such right in favor of either party beyond the
matters relating to his own ground of action or defense, respectively,
and enable him to obtain discovery in reference to matters relating
solely to the ground of action or defense of the other party. In other
words, under this rule the plaintiff's right of discovery extends only
to facts resting in the knowledge of the defendant or documents in
his possession material to the support of the plaintiff's case; and the
defendant's correlative right of discovery, only to facts and matters
material to his defense; and neither is entitled to discovery of an
inquisitional character as to the ground of action or defense of the
other. Further, any disclosure may be limited to material facts, am
does not extend to evidence or facts merely tending to prove the
Upheld in F. Speidel Co. v. N. Barstow Co., 232 Fed. 617, in which
the court says at page 618, that the purpose of the rule is to enable
a party to establish his own case rather than to seek information as
to the evidence or witnesses of the other party. The same rulings are
found in Wolcott v. Natl. Electric Signaling Co., 235 Fed. 224.
In Batdorf v. Sattley Coin Handling Machine Co., 241 Fed. 925, the
court says at page 926: "Equity Rule 58 does not warrant the court
in requiring answers which would give no more than an opinion, or
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A MASTER. 1117
no more than the evidence intended to be relied on in the support
or defense of the cause; but if the answer would disclose a material
fact or document, an interrogatory should not be denied simply be- /
cause it would, in disclosing the material fact or document, require
an expression of opinion, the disclosure of some of the evidence on /
which the party interrogated would rely at the trial, or the giving of |
other information which, standing alone could not be required."
At page 928 the court lists the cases in which Rule 58 has been
considered and says: "But these decisions are not entirely in harmony.
I am in favor of applying the rule in such a manner as to simplify
as far as possible, not only the issues of the cause, but also the testi-
mony either in behalf or in defense of the cause."
In Pressed Steel Car Co. v. U. P. Ry. Co., 241 Fed. 964, at page 966,
the court says: "As a result (of Rule 58 and Rule 29) the proper
practice in a bill of discovery is now as follows: The plaintiff will
plead those facts which entitle him to a discovery from the defendant,
and will annex such interrogatories as he wishes the defendant to
answer. If the defendant does not dispute the plaintiff's right to some
discovery, but objects to some or all of the actual_interrogatpries
annexed to the bill, he will make those objections under Rule 58, and
bring them on for hearing before the judge. He is not subject to the
rule that by answering one he must answer all. If, on the other
hand, he disputes the plaintiff's right to any discovery, he will plead
in an answer such facts as he deems apposite, and obtain from the
court, under Rule 58, an enlargement of his time to answer the inter-
rogatories until the plaintiff's right to discovery is established." And
at page 967, ''the plaintiff will have leave to frame and keep retraining
interrogatories until it has extracted from the defendant all the in-
formation which it possesses: Much jhe most convenient wav_jatouldL
be forthe__p_arties^tpagree upon a master and allow the plaintiff an
This, however, 1 can not compel; but the~same
result may probably be obtained, though it must be confessed with
the maximum of expense in time and labor, by allowing interroga-
tories to be renewed as often as justice requires."
In Marquette Mfg. Co. v. Oglesby Coal Co., 247 Fed. 351, the court
reviews the cases dealing with phases of Rule 58, and finds that dis-
covery may not be had of the evidence, or of such matters as tend to
criminate, or of a trade secret, or which would be against public
policy or professional privilege; also that it was not the purpose to
compel discovery, by plaintiff, of the particulars of his own cause of
action, where such particulars do not relate to any pleaded defense,
pr to compel the defendant to disclose facts material only to his
1118 SUITS IN EQUITY.
Report of Special Master. (1)
To the Honorable Judges of said Court :
The undersigned, this day appointed Special Master in
the above stated cause to report to the court whether or
not the strike of May 20, 1901, referred to in the bill of
complaint herein, is ended, and whether the questions in
controversy which brought about said strike have been ad-
justed, respectfully submits the following report:
I have taken the testimony of several witnesses, includ-
ing the defendant, C. D., and of the manager of said com-
plainant company and report the following:
First. That all, except two or three of the men who went
out from the factory of complainant on the 20th day of
May, 1901, have returned to work, and are now at work in
said factory; that said return to work was voluntary on
the part of said employees and without any inducement
offered by complainant's officers, or agents, except the state-
ment that they were at liberty to return to work, and that
said strike of May 20, 1901, is over.
Second. I find that there has been no adjustment, or set-
tlement of the controversy which was the immediate cause
of said strike, but that said strikers returned to work and
are now at work upon t the same terms as to hours and
wages as prevailed before the strike.
The testimony taken upon the reference is filed in cause
No. . Respectfully submitted,
Dated - . Special Master.
(1) See Equity Rule 61.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A MASTER. 1119
To the Honorable Judges, etc. :
In pursuance of a decretal order made and entered in
this cause, and bearing date of the day of , 1894,
at a stated term of this court, held at [place of holding
court], in the city of , in the said district, by which it
was referred to C. G., of , one of the masters of this
court, to take and state an account of [according to the
I, C. G., a master in said court, do respectfully report
that I have proceeded to investigate the matters so referred
to me, and that pursuant to a summons duly issued, I have
been attended by the parties, plaintiff and defendant, and
their respective counsel in the above cause [or as the fact
may be], and that, after taking clue proofs, I find and re-
port that [here set forth the findings of the master],
I do, therefore, respectfully report that the said defend-
ant should be decreed to pay the said plaintiff the sum of
- dollars, besides costs to be taxed.
I respectfully refer to schedules A, B, C, hereto annexed,
as making a part of my report.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Dated - -. C. G.,
(1) See Equity Rule 61.
Report of Master Introduction.
To the Honorable Judge of the United States District
Court for the District of Maine:
The undersigned, J. A. M., who was appointed Master
in the above entitled cause September 12, 1913, to hear and
1120 SUITS IN EQUITY.
report to the Honorable Court his findings of fact and con-
clusions of law in the above entitled cause, respectfully re-
ports that on the 24th of September, 1913, and on the two
following clays, he heard the evidence introduced by the par-
ties hereto and also the arguments for the complainant and
for the respondent, and he respectfully submits the follow-
ing report containing the findings of fact and the conclu-
sions of law found by him, which he respectively presents
as his report as Master in the above entitled cause. In
addition the said Master also files with his said report a
report on the evidence taken out before him and also the
argument of counsel.
J. A. M.,
February 3, 1914. Master.
Notice Accompanying Draft of Master's Report.
Messrs. X. & X.,
Solicitors for Plaintiff,
Messrs. Y. Y.,
Solicitors for Defendant.
Sirs: You are hereby notified that I have prepared the
draft of my report upon the matters referred to me as mas-
ter, by the interlocutory decree herein, dated the - - day
of - , and that a copy of such draft report accompanies
and is annexed to this notice, and is herewith served upon
you; you are also hereby notified that I shall sign and file
said draft report as my report herein, unless alterations are
made by me therein, upon suggestions of counsel for either
party hereto, and that I appoint the day of - , at
my office, No. - street, in the city of - , at 11
o'clock in the forenoon of said day, for counsel for either
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A MASTER. 1121
party hereto to present to me any suggestions of amend-
ments to or alterations of said draft report, and to file with
me written objections or exceptions thereto, if any they
nave to the same.
Yours, etc., C. G.,
Dated at .
Exceptions to Master's Report. (1)
Exceptions taken by the plaintiff [or, defendant] to the
report made herein by C. G., one of the masters of this
court, to whom this cause was referred by an order of this
court made and entered on the - - day of - , 1894.
First Exception : For that the said master, in his said
report, etc. [state the objection], whereas the said master
should have, etc. [state zvhat it is claimed ought to have
been reported] .
Second Exception : For that, etc. R. X.,
Solicitor for, etc.
(1) See Equity Rule 66; Decker v. Smith, 225 Fed. 776; Shef. &
Bir. Ry. Co. v. Gordon, 151 U. S. 285, 38 L. Ed. 164.
Exceptions to Report of Special Master.
For defendants it is urged, for exception to the said re-
port of Special Master:
First. That it assumes that there is anything due com-
plainant on the obligations of defendants, because those ob-
ligations show on their face a reservation of usurious in-
terest. This usury is condemned both by the laws of Ten-
nessee and Alabama, and in Tennessee avoids the contract
and forfeits the principal. The evidence shows that the
obligations are Tennessee contracts.
1122 SUITS IN EQUITY.
Second. The evidence shows that the interest allowed by
the Special Master is usurious, and binds neither of the de-
Third. C. D. had no power to make any contract as to
the stock in company of complainants, and her property
cannot be charged for the same, she being a married woman
when this contract was made.
Fourth. The Special Master, if he is permitted to allow
interest at all on the principal, ca,nnot allow beyond 6 per
cent, per annum, and without rests. He has allowed inter-
est at the rates claimed by complainant, and this is error.
Fifth. Defendants prove that on the loan one thousand
dollars were paid. He has not yielded to this proof, and
has not allowed that credit.
Sixth. C. D. cannot be charged with interest, premiums,!
fines or dues on the stock. There is no evidence that she
ever applied for stock in complainant, and if she did it was
a contract she was incapable of making, and is not bound
Seventh. The Master cannot charge either of defendants
with taxes paid by the complainant on the property or with
what they paid M. N., yet he has done so.
Eighth. C. D. cannot be charged with attorney's fees. It
was a contract she had no power to make.
R. Y., for Defendants.
Exceptions to Master's Report and Motion for Allowance
Now comes the petitioner in the above entitled cause and
prays that it may be allowed exceptions on the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law of J. A. M., Mas-
ter in the above entitled cause:
First. That the Master finds as a matter of law that the
numerals 1-0-8 as used by your petitioner are not the sub-
ject of a trade-mark.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A MASTER. 1123
Your petitioner prays that he may be allowed an excep-
tion to this finding and states that as a matter of law
numerals as used by your petitioner are the subject of a
Second. That the Master finds that the petitioner is not
entitled to an injunction on account of an infringement of
the defendant on the alleged trade-mark, and your petitioner
prays that he may be allowed an exception on this finding.
Third. That the Master finds that the petitioner has not
established his case of unfair competition on the part of
the defendant as will entitle him to an injunction as prayed
for, and your petitioner prays that he may be allowed an
exception to this finding.
Fourth. That the Master finds that the petitioner is not
entitled to an accounting for damages, and your petitioner
prays that he may be allowed an exception to this finding.
That he may be -allowed a general exception to the re-
port of the Master in that it is against the law, against
evidence and against the weight of evidence.
GOLDSMITH SILVER COMPANY,
By its Attorney, M. E. R.
Receiver's Exceptions to Master's Report Because of His Lack
To the Honorable E. R. M., Judge:
Now comes G. W. F., Receiver, and says to the Court
that the findings of fact and conclusions of law made by
Ben H. Stone, Master in Chancery pro hac vice, filed herein
on the 8th day of February, 1917, should not be considered
as findings, but that said report should only be considered
as a report of the evidence taken by him, for the reason
that the order of Court appointing said Master in Chancery
1124 SUITS IN EQUITY.
does not authorize or require said Master to make or re-
port any findings of fact or conclusions of law, but simply
and only directs and empowers the said Master in Chan-
cery to hear evidence and to seasonably report thereon.
And, therefore, said Receiver excepts to the Court's con-
sidering such findings of fact or conclusions of law so made
by said Master. Wherefore, said Receiver prays the Court
to strike out and not consider any of the findings of fact
or conclusions of law contained in said report, but to
wholly disregard the same and to accept said report only as
showing what evidence was taken and returned by the
Subject to the foregoing motion and exception, without
waiving the same, but insisting thereon, yet solely for the
purpose of protecting this Receiver's rights and in com-
pliance with the rules of equity, in the event the Court shall
overrule said foregoing motion and shall consider such find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law, then this Receiver pre-
sents for the consideration of the Court the following ex-
ceptions to certain findings and conclusions, to wit:
Wherefore, Receiver prays that its motion set forth in
paragraph 1 hereof to reject the findings and conclusions
of the Master be granted, and that said findings be disre-
garded; but if said motion shall be overruled, then Receiver,
reserving all exceptions and objections to the action of the
Court which he may be entitled thereby, prays the Court
to reject the findings and conclusions of said Master set
forth in the foregoing exceptions, and to make findings in
accordance with the truth and justice of the record and in
accordance with the foregoing exceptions; and for any and
all such other orders, judgments and decrees as said Re-
ceiver may be entitled to in the premises he will every pray.
A. B. and C. D.,
Attorneys for Receiver.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A MASTER. 1125
The Plaintiff's Exceptions to the Report of the Master on
Exceptions taken by the plaintiff to the report made
herein by Charles B. Morrison, Esq., one of the Masters of
this Court, to this cause, on accounting by an order of
this court herein duly made and entered:
First Exception : For that the Master does not find and
hold that plaintiffs are entitled to recover on the basis of an
Second Exception : For that the Master does not find and
hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover in this action
for the rubber tires and rubber sections made by it and
sent to foreign countries.
Third Exception: For that the Master does not find and
hold that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover out of the
general profits made by defendant during the infringing
period pro rata, as the sales of infringing tires bear to the
total sales of defendant during the infringing period.
Fourth Exception : For that the Master does not award
interest to plaintiffs from the time when royalties should
have been paid, had the defendants been operating under a
license, and in accordance with the licenses which were is-
sued by the plaintiffs.
Fifth Exception : . For that the amount found by the
Master as due from the defendant to the plaintiff is too
small, considering the nature of the invention and the util-
ity and advantages of the monopoly granted by the patent
JOHN W. HILL,
Solicitor for Complainants.
1126 SUITS IN EQUITY.
Exceptions to Report of Special Master (Another Form).
District Court of the United States, - District of
The A. B. Trust Company of
The C. & D. Railroad Company et al.
S. M., receiver of the C. & D. Railroad, excepts to so
much of said report as finds :
First. That the Second National Bank of - has a first
lien or charge, or any other lien or charge, upon the real
estate mentioned in said report superior to the lien of the
mortgage of the C. & D. Railroad Company to the E. F.
Trust Company of , trustee, dated November 9, 1895,
or to the lien of the mortgage of said railroad company to
the A. B. Trust Company of - , trustee, dated .
Second. That H. W. has a first lien or charge, or any
lien or charge, upon the real estate mentioned in said re-
port superior to the lien of the mortgage of the C. & D.
Railroad Company to the E. F. Trust Company of ,
trustee, dated - , or to the lien of the mortgage of said
railroad company to the A. B. Trust Company of ,
trustee, dated - .
Third. That L. P. has a first lien or charge, or any lien
or charge, upon the real estate mentioned in said report
superior to the lien of the mortgage of the C. & D. Rail-
road Company to the E. F. Trust Company of New York,
trustee, dated - , or to the lien of the mortgage of said
railroad company to the A. B. Trust Company of 4
trustee, dated . R. X.,
Counsel for S. M., Receiver.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A MASTER. 1127
Order Granting Leave to Amend Exceptions to Master's
It is further ordered that leave be granted to < complain-
ant to amend its exceptions to the report of the Master
heretofore filed in said cause for failure to report upon
the facts as to the former adjudications mentioned in the
bill of complaint and his conclusions of law thereon.
(1) Not specifically covered by any rule but falls within the general
powers of a court of equity. See Equity Rule 66.
Plaintiff's Adoption of Exceptions by Receiver to Master's
Now comes Emile K. Boisot, Trustee, plaintiff and for
the purpose of avoiding a useless lengthening of the rec-
ord herein, and in order that the rights of said plaintiff
may be protected in this cause, hereby adopts as his own
the exceptions to the report of the Master, filed herein on
the 26th day of February, 1917, by Guy W. Faller, Re-
ceiver, in said cause, including the motion set forth in para-
graph 1 of said exceptions to reject and not consider the
findings of fact or conclusions of law contained in said re-
port of said Master, as well also as adopting the prayer
of said Receiver set forth in said exceptions, and in all
other respects this plaintiff makes said instrument so filed
by said Guy W. Faller, Receiver, his own, and prays the
Court to act upon said exceptions and motion on behalf of
the plaintiff, and this plaintiff also reserves unto himself
all such other exceptions and objections to the action of
said Master and to the ruling of the Court on said report,