DORSEY v. HAMMOND, 465

required to take testimony, to make the necessary statements there-
from, and to report accordingly to the court. Such commissions were
frequently executed at a distance from the court, without any help or
light from the pleadings, in which the claims and pretensions of the
parties were set forth; and, without any immediate access to the
Chancellor for explanation of principles, in case of any doubt, or dif-
ficulty with the commissioners. Such a mode of preparing and stating
accounts must often have been attended with much expense and incon-
venience; yet as it is a mode of proceeding properly belonging to this
court, which has not been in any way expressly or virtually abolished,
it may now be resorted to in cases where the books, documents and
proofs are at a distance, and cannot, without much inconvenience, be
brought into court, and lodged within reach of the regular auditor, (a)

(a) Clapham v. Thompson, ante, 123; Rutland v. Yates and Petty, MS., 25th
August 1789.

BIRCHFIELD v. VANDERHEYDEN, 12th July 1722.—After a commission to account,
which had been issued to commissioners at a distance from the court, had been returned
without any thing having been done, the plaintiff moved " for another commission to
some persons in Annapolis to audite the same accounts for his more easy laying the ac-
counts of the deceased before them;" which was granted.—Ch. Rec. Lib. P. L. fol. 891.

DORSEY v. DULANY.—This bill was filed, 11th December 1762, by the plaintiff
against the administrator of his deceased partner, for an account, &c. The com-
plainant and defendant, by their counsel, consented and prayed that a commission
might issue to some persons to examine evidences and audite accounts in relation to
the said case: whereupon commissioners were struck by the counsel of the parties
in the usual manner, and a commission issued accordingly, directed to the several
persons therein named and appointed, in the words following:

Maryland, Sct.—Frederick, absolute lord and proprietary of the province of Maryland,
and Avalon, Lord Baroti of Baltimore, &c.: To Dr. John Stevenson, Bryan Philpot of
Baltimore county, Lancelot Jaques and George Clark of Ann Arundel county, gentle-
men; greeting: Know ye, that we have nominated and appointed you, or any three
or two of you to be our commissioners to examine evidence; as also to audite, state,
settle and adjust all accounts in a certain cause depending in our High Court of Chan-
cery, between Caleb Dorsey of Ann Arundel county, iron master, complainant, and
Henrietta Maria Dulany, administratrix de bonis non of Edward Dorsey esq'r. of the
same county, defendant: We therefore require you or any three or two of you, that at
such time and place, as to you or any three or two of you shall seem convenient, you
cause to come before you or any three or two of you all such evidences as shall be to
you, or any three or two of you named or produced by either the complainant or defend-
ant; and also to state, audite, settle, and adjust all accounts relating to the matter in
dispute that shall be produced to you, or any three or two of you, by either of the par-
ties, and that you examine them, and every of them, on their corporal oaths to be by
you administered on the Holy Evangelists, in the presence of the said complainant
and defendant, if they, having timely notice thereof, think fit to be present, touching
their knowledge of any tiling that may relate to the cause aforesaid; and that you
reduce into writing such account as shall be stated and settled by you; and the same
with the said depositions you send together with this our commission under your or
any three or two of your hands and seals with all convenient speed to us in our High

59