JONES v. MAGILL.—1 BLAND. 185

very prejudicial to the testator of the plaintiff, who was only the
surety of Harding; and, therefore, that the plaintiff should be

that David Stewart and David C. Stewart, defendants in the suit referred
to, in the said petition, do forthwith produce to this Court, the following
books and papers, viz: The ledger of David Stewart & Son, from the year
1799, till the dissolution of their partnership, &c. &c. or that they forthwith
produce to this Court copies of the said several books and papers certified
by a Justice of the Peace; if the said books and papers respectively are in
their possession or power. Provided, that inasmuch as the application is
made by petition, and not by motion in Court; any motion or cause shewn
against this requisition and decree will be heard at any time during the first
week of the ensuing February Term.

A solicitor of the defendants having been heard in shewing cause against
making this order absolute:

KILTY, C., 25th March, 1811.—During the present term, cause was shewn
by R. G. Harper, counsel in this suit for Hall and Stewart, against the above
decree: but on considering the argument urged by him, the Chancellor does
not think the cause shewn to be sufficient against the said decree, which
therefore remains absolute except as to the time of producing the said books
and papers. Provided, that a copy of this order and of the said decree be
served on the said D. Stewart and D. C. Stewart, or either of them, before
the 10th day of April next.

On the 25th of July, 1811, David Stewart by his petition, on oath, stated,
that the firm of David Stewart & Son being embarrassed in their commer-
cial concerns, transferred, all their property, estate and effects, including
their books, papers, letters and accounts of every description, to Elias Elli-
cott, William Winchester, and John Munnykhysin who is since deceased, in
trust for the benefit of their creditors; that David Stewart was appointed
by them their agent to settle the affairs of the firm of David Stewart & Son,
and in that capacity he has ever since held possession of those books and
papers; that Ellicott the trustee objects to the removal of them; and there-
fore this defendant David Stewart submits, whether they are so far in his
possession and control as to enable him to comply with the requisition.

KILTY, C., 25th July, 1811.—The Chancellor has already passed such orders
on the subject mentioned in the within petition as he thought proper. If the
books and papers were in the possession of any other person, he would be
ordered to produce them. The sentiments expressed by Elias Ellicott, and
his unwillingness to have the books removed, can have no effect on the
Court, and are not proper to be stated as an excuse for not complying with,
the order thereof.

After which the defendant having failed to produce all the papers as or-
dered:—

KILTY, C., 27th September, 1811.—On motion of the petitioners, it is
Ordered, that Stewart & Son produce and lodge in this Court, such of the
papers mentioned in the former order as are not yet exhibited, before the
first day of November next.

After which, the case having been brought on for a final hearing, it was,
on the 29th February, 1816, decreed, that the defendant Hall pay or refund