MASTER OF THE CROWN - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

MASTER OF THE CROWNAuthored

The Law Mind • 855 words

Definition

Master of the Crown is an English common law office designating an officer of the Court of Chancery (and related crown courts) who acted as an appointed subordinate of the court to perform quasi-judicial functions on behalf of the Crown. In its principal historical sense, the Master of the Crown was one of several Masters in Chancery whose specific charge related to matters touching crown interests — supervising accounts, taking testimony, and reporting findings to the court in proceedings where the Crown was a party or had a direct interest.

The term is functionally a species of the broader category of "master" in equity practice: a court-appointed officer delegated to hear evidence, audit accounts, make computations, and prepare reports for judicial confirmation. The Crown-specific designation distinguished this officer from Masters assigned to ordinary private litigation.

---

Common Confusion

MASTER OF THE CROWN vs. MASTER IN CHANCERY vs. SPECIAL MASTER: These three terms are frequently encountered in proximity in historical equity sources and are easily conflated. A Master in Chancery was the general English Chancery officer; the Master of the Crown was a subspecialty focused on crown-related proceedings; the Special Master is the American successor concept now codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53. Researchers working across English and American sources must be careful not to treat these as interchangeable. The English office of Master in Chancery was abolished in 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 80); the American special master survives as a living procedural institution.

---

Why It Matters in Research

This term is almost exclusively a historical English equity term. Researchers encounter it in pre-nineteenth-century chancery records, treatises on English equity practice, and occasionally in early American colonial or federal equity materials that imported English chancery procedure wholesale.

Several traps await the researcher. First, the Bouvier's entry fragment available in this corpus addresses the master's report, exceptions practice, and recommittal — procedural mechanics that apply broadly to masters in equity — but does not specifically distinguish the Crown subspecialty. Bouvier synthesizes English and American practice without always flagging which rules were Crown-specific and which were general. Second, because the office was abolished in England before American equity practice fully matured into its modern form, citations to "Master of the Crown" in American materials almost always refer back to English precedent rather than to a functioning domestic office. Third, historical sources indexed under "Master in Chancery" and "Master of the Crown" overlap substantially; searching only one heading will miss relevant material.

For researchers interested in the procedural mechanics — how masters take testimony, prepare reports, handle exceptions, and face recommittal — the surviving American analogue is the Special Master under Rule 53. The Bouvier fragment in this corpus (citing 3 Woodb. & M. 157 and 12 Ill. 277) addresses exactly these mechanics, and that material translates directly to research on Rule 53 special masters. The res adjudicata effect of a confirmed master's report, the conditions under which recommittal is appropriate, and the proper handling of exceptions are all live issues in modern special master practice.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

Bouvier's Law Dictionary addresses the master's procedural role in equity — specifically the finality of a confirmed report, the standard for recommittal, and the master's proper handling of exceptions — but the available fragment does not define "Master of the Crown" as a distinct office. Bouvier treats the mechanics of the master's function broadly, consistent with his synthesis of English equity procedure into American practice.

This is a significant gap. The Crown-specific designation carried distinct jurisdictional and substantive implications in English practice that Bouvier, writing for an American audience, had less reason to elaborate. Researchers needing precise historical treatment of the Crown officer as such should consult English equity treatises directly — Mitford's Treatise on the Pleadings in Suits in the Court of Chancery (various editions, 18th–19th century) and Story's Commentaries on Equity Pleadings address related ground, though neither focuses exclusively on the Crown subspecialty.

The citation in the Bouvier fragment to 3 Woodb. & M. 157 refers to Woodbury & Minot's United States Circuit Court Reports, indicating that by the mid-nineteenth century American federal courts were applying these English-derived master's report principles in domestic equity proceedings.

---

Jurisdictional Note

The office of Master of the Crown is an English institution with no direct American counterpart. American equity courts absorbed the general master-in-chancery function; the crown-specific dimension did not transplant. Modern researchers encountering this term in American sources are almost always dealing with a reference to English precedent, not a domestic office.

---

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

Receivership and Appointment of Special Masters — Rule 53, The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia (direct successor procedural context for master's reports, exceptions, and recommittal standards discussed in the Bouvier fragment)

---

MASTER OF THE CROWNsubentry

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

dered to take testimony, it is res adjudicata and the case will not be recommitted unless specific errors can be designated; 3 Woodb. & Μ. 157. After the report is prepared, it is proper for the master to hear exceptions and cor- rect his report, or if he disallows them, to report them to the court with the evidence; 12 III. 277; but he need not report all the testimony where the decretal order under which he acts does not require it; 52 Me. 182, 147. As to reporting evidence, see 6 N. Y. Chy. Reprint 372. A matter may be referred to a master and his report received and confirmed all at the same term of the court; 8 Ala. 88; but the general practice is to permit the report to lie over to the term follow- ing on motion of either party; 1 Brock. 529. A court of equity is not bound by the report of a master, but may confirm, mod- ify, or reject it, as the issues in the suit must be decided by the court itself; 19 U. S. App. 477; but this finding both of fact and of law will be presumed to be correct; 155 U. S. 631; and will stand unless there is some obvious error in the application of the law or serious mistake in the consider- ation of the evidence; 144 U. S. 585; id. 104; 36 W. Va. 454. See 151 U. S. 285. In practice it is not usual for the court to reject the report of a master, with his findings upon the matter referred to him, unless exceptions are taken to them and brought to its attention, and, upon exami- nation, the findings are found unsupported or defective in some essential particular; 128 U. S. 617. The court will not interfere with a report of a master upon a question of fact depend- ing upon the credibility of witnesses, unless an error is clearly made to appear; 9 Ν. J. Eq. 309, 659; the report has not the po- sition of a verdict on a motion for a new trial at law, but on exceptions on a question of fact it is only necessary to review and weigh the evidence; 18 N. J. Eq. 144; and it will not be overruled because the evi- dence is vague and conflicting, unless the conclusion is unwarranted by the evidence; id. The theory that it stands as a verdict obtains only when the findings are de- ductions from incorporated facts; 152 Pa. 42. As to sales by masters, see 7 N. Y. Chy. Reprint 63, note. As to when a decree founded on a mas- ter's report will be opened, see 4 Edw. Ch. 249; 6 Allen 457; and when reviewed, 6 N. Y. Chy. Reprint 527, note. See generally, Dan. Ch. Pr. ch. xxvi.; 1 Fost. Fed. Pr. ch. xxiii; 15 Myer's Fed. Dec. 827; Bennet, Masters: Tamlyn, Pract. & Master's Office; Garland & Ralston, Fed. Pr.