Manfredi v. O'Brien Et Al‪.‬

DONAHUE, Justice. This is a bill to reach and apply, in satisfaction of a debt owed by the defendant O'Brien to the plaintiff, moneys held by the defendant Segel & Ostrovitz Company, Incorporated, as mortgagee under a construction mortgage given by the defendant O'Brien. The case comes to this court on the appeal of the defendant corporation from a final decree entered on a master's report. No question is now raised as to the propriety of that portion of the decree which establishes the debt of the defendant O'Brien to the plaintiff in the sum of $293 with interest. The decree further recites that the defendant corporation 'has in its possession the sum of $2,400 due defendant, Elizabeth J. O'Brien' and orders the defendant corporation to pay the plaintiff out of said sum the amount of the debt established and $61.85 as costs. The order of reference to the master required him 'to hear the parties and their evidence and report his findings to the court together with such facts and questions of law as either party may request.' The report in this case was unnecessarily made long and complicated by the master's annexation of seventeen requests for findings of fact made by the plaintiff and nineteen such requests made by the defendant O'Brien, and by his appending to each request specific findings or a statement of his refusal to make findings. The ascertainment of what the master actually found requires a critical comparison of findings appearing in the body of the report with those scattered among the requests, and the analysis with some nicety of the effect of the categorical denial of certain requests for findings stated by the master in the report. Although it is proper for counsel by way of argument on the facts or as suggestions to submit, and for a master to receive, requests for findings of fact, the master is not bound to make the findings or to state his reasons for not doing so. Warfield v. Adams, 215 Mass. 506, 519, 102 N.E. 706; Tuttle v. Corey, 245 Mass. 196, 203, 140 N.E. 249. No useful purpose is served by annexing such requests to a master's report since no valid exception lies to the refusal to find facts as requested. First National Bank of Haverhill v. Harrison, 271 Mass. 258, 262, 171 N.E. 724, and cases cited; Greenhood v. Richardson, 226 Mass. 208, 115 N.E. 296. Such findings of fact as a master makes should appear in the body of the report.