Gsmms v. our or NEW ORLEANS. 25
against the defendant, taken pro COIUFCSSO, had been vacated, viz.:
To speed a cause which sought to enforce a right to an inheritance,
the contest as to which had been prolonged far beyond two average
human lives, and with respect to which the controlling principles
had been settled never to be shaken. The thing as to which the ac-
count was directed to be taken was specifically defined, and the rules
upon which it was to be taken were clearly set out in the order of
reference. The only question worthy of any consideration, with ref-
erence to such an order, would be whether it was made at a point in
the litigation, when a reference of the matter committed to the mas-
ter could be had without prejudice to the rights of the litigants.
The demurrer to the whole bill had been overruled, after a very full
argument, and the court had announced its opinion to the effect that
that portion of the bill, and that alone, was good by wl1ic11 the com-
plainant sought to recover from the defendant the rents which she
might and would have derived from that part of the Blanc tract
from which she had been kept out of possession by the devices of the
defendant, through her warrantees who occupied. Leave, accord-
ingly, was given to the defendant to still demur to the rest of the bill,
and a reference was directed to ascertain the rents and profits wl1icl1
the complainant would have derived had she been allowed to remain
in undisturbed possession. See Decree, March 27, 1880. This in-
quiry was just as capable of being conducted at that point in the
progress of the cause as after a decree upon the evidence. The
complainant, in acting upon the order, incurred the risk of the costs
of the reference, in case she should obtain no decree upon the evi-
c . dence when the causeshould have been hnally submitted. The de-
fendant was in no respect prejudiced, and was deprived of nothing
but the opportunity for causing still further delay.
(2) As to the exception that the master has not reported upon
certain questions. Nothing was referred to him except to take and
state the account of rents and profits as to the tract of land known
as the Blanc t1·act,—both those realized and those which might have
been acquired with ordinary good management.
(3) As to the exception that, in some respects, the master has
not correctly located the tract. The court finds that the location
adopted by the master is confirmed by the contemporaneous maps
offered as exhibits in this cause.
(4) As to the exception that the master has carried on the charges
for rent after the judgments of eviction. This exception is founded
» on a misapprehension. The master’s report shows that he charges
the defendant with rents only up to the date of eviction, under the
Agnelly and Monsseaux judgments, although he has properly contin-
ucd the allowance of interest upon the rent dues, or amounts of rents,
till judgment. The other exceptions to the master’s report on the
part of defendant have been considered in the opinion and are over-
ruled. As to the exception to the master’s report on the part of the