TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN. 75

quently, this legislative enactment, so far as it goes, can only
be regarded as an affirmance of the pre-existing powers of the
Chancellor. And this court has, in many cases, since the pas-
sage of that law, assumed the position, that it was in fact
nothing more, so far as it went, than an affirmance of its pre-
existing powers; it has, where occasion required, issued a com-
mission to audit accounts; it has referred cases to persons
with directions to perform duties properly belonging to a master
in chancery or auditor, considering them as special auditors; and
it has, in various instances, treated the auditor as a standing
officer of the court, clothed with powers analogous to those of
a master in chancery in England; and with all such powers as
had been formerly understood to belong to a master in chancery
here, (h)

In fine, deeming it to be entirely within the legitimate scope
of the auditor's powers to make any inquiry, to take testi-
mony, to state any account, or to frame any statement which may
be necessary or proper to enable the court correctly to dispose of
any case in which it has the power to grant relief, I shall send this
case to the auditor, with such instructions accordingly.

ORDERED, that this case be and the same is hereby referred to
the auditor, with directions to report the whole value of the land

(A) MAIDWELL v. GRIFFITH, 1787.—ROGERS, Chancellor.—Ordered, that John
Weatherburne be appointed auditor, to make, state, and take an account between
the parties to this suit.-— Chancery Proceedings, lib. S. H. H. lett. B. fol 32.

KERR v. RAWLINGS.—December, 1789.—HANSON, Chancellor —An account hav-
ing been heretofore decreed, and the complainant's counsel having applied to the
court for instructions to the auditor in stating it; and several points relative thereto,
having been debated; the Chancellor is of opinion that, &c. &c. that the account to
be stated agreeably to the instructions, be open to the exceptions of either party.

The auditor reported an account accordingly, to which exceptions were idled
which were decided upon in the final decree.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. E,fol. 311.

TOWERS v. HANNAH.—5th May, 1807.—KILTY, Chancellor.—Decreed, as to the
part of the said bill praying for a conveyance, that the defendant J. Hannan, do by
a good and sufficient deed, executed, acknowledged and delivered according to law,
convey to the complainant E. Towers, the premises, in the proceedings mentioned,
to wit, a lot and dwelling house in the city of Baltimore, situate in Albemarle street,
being part of a lot, number 326, containing 20 feet in front, and 40 feet in depth,
with all and singular the appurtenances and privileges thereto belonging. To have
and to hold the same from the date of this decree; and during the term of the natural
life of the said E. Towers. And it is further Decreed, that the said E. Towers have
possession of the said house and lot, with the appurtenances and privileges aforesaid.

And it is further Decreed, as to the part of the bill praying for an account, that the
defendant J. Hannan, account with the complainant for the rents and profits of the