The reports are then filed, Ib. In Thomas v. Dawkins, 3 Bro. 508. S. C. 1 Ves. jun. 452. the Lord Chancellor doubted whether exceptions would lie to the Master's report of the appointment of a receiver. And see Hughes v. Williams, 6 Ves. 459. But it has been held that exceptions would lie. Creuze v. Bishop of London. 2 Dick. 687. S. C. 2 Bro. 253. Garland v. Garland, 2 Ves. jun. 137. Wilkins v. Williams, 3 Ves. 588. Tharpe v. Tharpe, 12 Ves. 317. Otherwise in the case of guardian. See Decrees respecting Infants, No. IX. Note. ante. The report may be brought before the Court by petition. Wynne v. Lord Newborough, 15 Ves. 283. Attorney-General v. Day, 2 Mad. 246. If the report is not objected to, no further order is necessary. The Master's report of a receiver's account does not require confirmation, and does not therefore admit of exceptions. Shewell v. Jones, 2 S. & S. 172. But where the principle upon which the Master has proceeded is controverted, the report may be brought before the Court on petition, S. C. So in the case of taxation of costs. See Orders respecting Solicitors, No. II. Note. post. No. II. INQUIRY AS TO REPAIRS. [Inter alia] And it is further ordered that the said Master do inquire whether it will be for the benefit of the estate that the testator's house in Cavendish-square should be put in repair. And if the said Master should find that it will, it is further ordered, that then so much as the said Master shall find to be sufficient for such repairs be laid out accordingly, and be paid by the receiver out of the personal estate, and be allowed to him in passing his accounts. And it is further ordered that the said Master do make a separate report, touching &c. and the repairs of the testator's house in Cavendish-. square. Gibson v. Lord Montfort, L. C. 25th June, 1750 Reg. Lib. A. 1749. fol. 583. .S. C. 1 Ves. 485. Ambl. 93. Y Repairs. Formerly the Court never permitted a receiver to lay out money without a previous order; but now where the receiver has laid out money without such previous order it is usual to refer it to the Master, to see whether it was for the benefit of the persons interested. Tempest v. Ord, 2 Mer. 56. And see Attorney-General v. Vigor, 11 Ves. 563. Blunt v. Clitherow. 6 Ves. 799. Morris v. Elme, 1 Ves. jun. 139. No. III. ORDER FOR RECEIVER WHERE PRIOR INCUM BRANCES. His Lordship doth order that it be referred to Mr. J. one &c. to appoint a proper person to be receiver of the rents and profits of the capital mansion-house &c. But the appointment of the said receiver is not to affect prior incumbrancers upon the said estates and premises, who may think proper to take possession of the said estates and premises, by virtue of the said securities respectively. And it is ordered that the said Master do also allow to such person so to be appointed &c. [See No. I. ante.] And it is ordered that the said Máster do inquire what incumbrances there are affecting the said estates and premises, and also into the priorities thereof respectively. For the better discovery whereof &c. [See Usual Directions, No. II. ante.] And it is ordered that the person so to be appointed receiver as aforesaid do, out of the rents and profits so to be received by him, keep down the interest and payments in respect of the said incumbrances, according to their priorities, and pay the balances thereof, which shall be from time to time reported due from him, into the Bank, with the privity &c. [See Usual Directions, No. X. ante.] Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, L. C. 5th March, 1818. Reg. Lib. A. 1817. fol. 873. S. C. 2 Swan, 115. 1 Swan. 74. NOTE. Prior Incumbrances. In Phipps v. Bishop of Bath and Wells, 2 Dick. 608. it was held that where the first mortgagee declined taking possession, a receiver could not be obtained on the application of a second mortgagee, without the consent of the first mortgagee. But where there are prior mortgagees or incumbrancers, who are not in possession, an order will be made for a receiver without prejudice to such mortgagees or incumbrancers taking possession. Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, supra. And see Bryan v. Connick, 1 Cox, 422. Dalmer v. Dashwood, 2 Cox, 383. Norway v. Rowe, 19 Ves. 153. Where there are prior incumbrances, the receiver will be directed to keep down the interest of them. Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, supra. And it will be referred to the Master to ascertain their priorities. Davis v. Duke of Marlborough, supra. And see Couraud v. Hanmer, No. VIII. post. No. IV. ORDER FOR RECEIVER IN CASE OF PARTNERSHIP. (1) [The plaintiffs were the assignees of David Glover.] His Lordship doth order that it be referred to Mr. A. one &c. to appoint a proper person to be receiver of the outstanding debts and effects of the late partnership of David Glover, Daniel Glover, Thomas Glover, and John Glover, in the pleadings of this cause mentioned, and to allow him &c. [See No. I. ante.] such person so be appointed receiver, first giving security &c. [See No. I. ante.] to be answerable for what he shall receive of such outstanding debts and effects, and to pay the same as this Court hath hereby directed, and shall hereafter direct. And it is ordered that the defendants Daniel Glover, John Glover, and Thomas Glover, do deliver over to such person so to be appointed receiver, all securities in their hands for such outstanding debts and effects, together with all books and papers relating thereto. And in case there shall be occasion to put any of the debts in suit for the recovery thereof, the same is to be done with the approbation of the said Master. (2) And such person so to be appointed is to make use of the names of the plaintiffs and defendants, or either of them, for that purpose; who are to be indemnified therein out of the said estate and effects. And it is ordered that the person so to be appointed receiver, do from time to time annually pass his accounts &c. [See No. I. ante.] Harden v. Glover, L. C. 10th August, 1810. Reg. Lib. A. 1809. fol. 924. S. C. (Harding v. Glover) 18 Ves. 281. NOTES. (1) See Skipp v. Harwood, 1 Dick. 114. S. C. 3 Atk. 564. (2) The approbation of the Master is sometimes dispensed with. See Jefferys v. Smith, No. V. post. No. V. ORDER FOR MANAGER AND RECEIVER OF A COLLIERY. His Lordship doth order that it be referred to Mr. J. one &c. to appoint a proper person to take and have the management of the partnership colliery, stock, and effects, and to have the direction and superintendance of the working the said partnership mines, and the carrying on the partnership trade in question, and to collect and get in the outstanding debts and effects belonging to the said partnership. And each of the partners of and in the said colliery and trade, who shall shew to the satisfaction of the said Master that he is a partner of and in the said colliery, regularly admitted as such by the other partners or owners thereof, and legally entitled to a share of the mines belonging thereto, and to receive a share of the profits of the said colliery, is to be at liberty to propose himself, (1) or such other person as he shall think fit, (such other person being a practical miner,) to the said Master to be appointed such manager and receiver. And the said Master is to be at liberty, if he shall see occasion, to proceed de die in diem, in the appointing of such manager and receiver. And the said Master is to make such person so to be appointed an allowance in respect thereof. But such per son so to be appointed is first to give security to be allowed of &c. [See No. I. ante.] duly to manage the said partnership colliery, and to be accountable for what he shall so receive in respect thereof, and to pay the same as this Court hath hereby And it is ordered that directed and shall hereafter direct. the plaintiffs and defendants do deliver over to such person so to be appointed manager and receiver, the stock, goods, effects, books, and accounts belonging to the said partnership. And the said manager and receiver is to be at liberty to bring actions as there shall be occasion (2) for the recovery of such of the debts as are now due, or shall hereafter become due, in the names of the parties or either of them; and the person or persons in whose name such action shall be brought, is or are to be indemnified against the costs and charges thereof out of the stock, goods, and effects of the said partnership, and out of the money to be received in respect of the said debts, by the said manager and receiver. And it is ordered that he do pay the debts due, and to become due, from the said partnership. And it is ordered that the said manager and receiver do pass his accounts before the said Master half-yearly; and after retaining (3) in his hands such sum of money as the Master shall deem sufficient for carrying on the said colliery, do pay the balances as the same shall become due from him into the bank with the privity &c. subject to the further order of this Court. Jefferys v. Smith, L. C. 29th April, 1820, Reg. Lib. A. 1819. fol. 2556. S. C. 1 J. & W. 298. NOTE. (1) See No. I. Note (2), ante. (2) See No. IV. Note (1), ante. (3) See No. I. Note (7), ante. No. VI. ORDER FOR RECEIVER OF PROPERTY IN [Inter alia] It is ordered, that the said Master do appoint a proper person or persons to be a receiver or receivers of the rents and profits of the said testator's real estates in America, and also to collect and get in the outstanding personal estate of the said testator in America, and make him or them a reasonable allowance in respect thereof; such person or per |