DORSE y v. HAMMOND. 469

The objections urged against this report indicate an opinion
of the solicitor, that the auditor had some how stepped beyond
his proper sphere in making it as he has done. No officer
should allow himself to deviate from the line of duty marked out
for him by law. The auditor is properly a mere ministerial officer
of the court. It is true, that he may legally administer an oath to
a witness and take his testimony in relation to an account desired
to be stated ;(h) yet he has no judicial power; nor can the legis-
lature constitutionally confer any portion of the Chancellor's judi-
cial power upon him. He is not in any sense an arbitrator; nor
is his report, under any circumstances, considered as obligatory on
the parties, unless confirmed by the court. When a case is referred
to arbitrators, the court divests itself of all judgment, and the
arbitrators are constituted judges of the fact without appeal;
on a reference to the auditor it is otherwise,—he is only to pre-
pare the case as a minister for the Chancellor who is really
the judge.(i) Nor can the auditor be allowed to act, in any
manner, as a prying, pragmatical agent, hunting up and col-
lecting the means of making or sustaining any claim, or objec-
tion in relation to the matter in controversy. It is his duty
to confine himself strictly to that which appears upon the face
of the proceedings and proofs, and to abstain from suggest-
ing any objection, prejudicial to any party, which the court, in its
regular course, would not, of itself, notice and sustain, if founded
in fact. It is his duty to examine and digest accounts; to prepare the

May next. 10th December 1792; no cause having been shewn the sale was abso-
lutely ratified.

11th December, 1792.—HANSON, Chancellor.—Each of the creditors of James
Conner deceased, mentioned in the report of the auditor, is entitled, not only to the
sum set down opposite to his name out of the principal money due, or paid by the
purchasers of Conner's real estate, but likewise to his just proportion, or dividend of
the interest paid, or to be paid on the sum of £ 112 19s. l 1/2d. which appears, from the
said report, to be the net product of the sale.

The decree directs the money arising from the sale to be brought into court. But
if the trustee shall pay to each of the creditors aforesaid, that which he is entitled
to, and take his receipt in full, he will probably run no risk of being sued on his
bond.

For illustration. N. Lateham appears, from the report aforesaid, entitled to the
sum of £6 5s. 1d. out of the sum of £112 19$. 1 1/2d. He is likewise entitled to his
dividend of the interest, which the trustee shall receive on the said £112 19s. 1 1/2d,
Suppose two years interest to be paid on the said 112 19s. 1 1/2d, This will be about
£ 13 lls. 0d. Then as £12 19s. 1 1/2d. is to £ 13 11s. 0d. so is the sum of £6 5s.. 1d.
to the additional sum which the said Lateham will be entitled to. So of the rest.

(h) Moore v. Aylet, 2 Dick. 641.—(i) Field v. Holland, 6 Cran. 21; Dick v.
Milligan, 2 Ves. jun, 24.