Weinstein & Factor, Walter L. Ferst, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Silverman & Warden, Randolph A. Warden, Willow Grove, for appellees.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Price, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 243 Pa. Super. Page 63]
On May 7, 1973, appellants commenced this action in equity seeking inter alia, the dissolution of Pleasure Time, Inc.*fn1 and relief in the nature of requiring certain officers and directors of Pleasure Time, Inc., to personally account for corporate funds expended, without authority, in furtherance of unauthorized business.*fn2 Responsive pleadings having been filed of record, the parties worked out, as a result of a conference with the chancellor in equity, a stipulation, filed of record, for reference of the matter to a master. The docket entries show that the master was appointed "to take such testimony and other evidence as he shall deem appropriate to assist the Court in reaching a decision in this matter and to make
[ 243 Pa. Super. Page 64]
his report to the Court with his recommendation for disposition of the case."*fn3
Pursuant to the stipulation, the master commenced the performance of his duties and heard testimony on December 3, 1973 and January 21, 1974. The notes of testimony of the December 3, 1973 hearing were lost, and the testimony of the plaintiff was again taken at a third hearing on May 9, 1974.
The master filed his written report on December 30, 1974. The report consisted of Findings of fact, discussion,*fn4 and Recommendations.*fn5 No formal exceptions to the master's report were filed by the parties, and they agreed to submit the case to the chancellor on briefs without argument.
On August 6, 1975, the chancellor entered a decree nisi which, in pertinent part, provided: "[S]aid Master's report is hereby confirmed and the Complaint in Equity is dismissed pursuant to the findings of fact, discussion and recommendations of the Master which the Court hereby adopts as the adjudication in this matter." (Emphasis added.) The chancellor made no separate adjudication. See Pa.R.C.P. No. 1517.
[ 243 Pa. Super. Page 65]
Appellants, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1518, filed exceptions, of which the following is the only relevant exception in terms ...